Evaluation of Fasting Plasma Insulin and Proxy Measurements to Assess Insulin Sensitivity in Horses

Overview

Journal BMC Vet Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Veterinary Medicine

Date 2021 Feb 16

PMID 33588833

Citations 2

Authors

Sanna Lindase

Katarina Nostell

Peter Bergsten

Anders Forslund

Johan Brojer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Proxies are mathematical calculations based on fasting glucose and/or insulin concentrations developed to allow prediction of insulin sensitivity (IS) and β-cell response. These proxies have not been evaluated in horses with insulin dysregulation. The first objective of this study was to evaluate how fasting insulin (FI) and proxies for IS (1/Insulin, reciprocal of the square root of insulin (RISQI) and the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI)) and β-cell response (the modified insulin-to-glucose ratio (MIRG) and the homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β)) were correlated to measures of IS (M index) using the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp (EHC) in horses with insulin resistance (IR) and normal IS. A second objective was to evaluate the repeatability of FI and proxies in horses based on sampling on consecutive days. The last objective was to investigate the most appropriate cut-off value for the proxies and FI.

Results: Thirty-four horses were categorized as IR and 26 as IS based on the M index. The proxies and FI had coefficients of variation (CVs) ≤ 25.3 % and very good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.89). All proxies and FI were good predictors of the M index (r = 0.76-0.85; P < 0.001). The proxies for IS had a positive linear relationship with the M index whereas proxies for β-cell response and FI had an inverse relationship with the M index. Cut-off values to distinguish horses with IR from horses with normal IS based on the M index were established for all proxies and FI using receiver operating characteristic curves, with sensitivity between 79 % and 91 % and specificity between 85 % and 96 %. The cut-off values to predict IR were < 0.32 (RISQI), < 0.33 (QUICKI) and > 9.5 µIU/mL for FI.

Conclusions: All proxies and FI provided repeatable estimates of horses' IS. However, there is no advantage of using proxies instead of FI to estimate IR in the horse. Due to the heteroscedasticity of the data, proxies and FI in general are more suitable for epidemiological studies and larger clinical studies than as a diagnostic tool for measurement of IR in individual horses.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of an Automated Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay for Quantification of Equine Insulin and Comparison to Five Other Immunoassays.

Nolen-Walston R, Kulp J, Stefanovski D, van Eps A J Vet Intern Med. 2025; 39(2):e70038.

PMID: 40048611 PMC: 11884604. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.70038.

Development of a Web App to Convert Blood Insulin Concentrations among Various Immunoassays Used in Horses.

Delarocque J, Feige K, Carslake H, Durham A, Fey K, Warnken T Animals (Basel). 2023; 13(17).

PMID: 37684968 PMC: 10487020. DOI: 10.3390/ani13172704.

Investigating the Relationship Between Cardiac Function and Insulin Sensitivity in Horses: A Pilot Study.

Williams N, Furr M, Navas de Solis C, Campolo A, Davis M, Lacombe V Front Vet Sci. 2022; 9:899951.

PMID: 35873691 PMC: 9305457. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.899951.

References

Lindase S, Nostell K, Muller C, Jensen-Waern M, Brojer J . Effects of diet-induced weight gain and turnout to pasture on insulin sensitivity in moderately insulin resistant horses. Am J Vet Res. 2016; 77(3):300-9. DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.77.3.300. View

Lindase S, Muller C, Nostell K, Brojer J . Evaluation of glucose and insulin response to haylage diets with different content of nonstructural carbohydrates in 2 breeds of horses. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2018; 64:49-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2018.03.006. View

Patterson-Kane J, Karikoski N, McGowan C . Paradigm shifts in understanding equine laminitis. Vet J. 2018; 231:33-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.11.011. View

Warnken T, Huber K, Feige K . Comparison of three different methods for the quantification of equine insulin. BMC Vet Res. 2016; 12(1):196. PMC: 5016943. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0828-z. View

Durham A, Frank N, McGowan C, Menzies-Gow N, Roelfsema E, Vervuert I . ECEIM consensus statement on equine metabolic syndrome. J Vet Intern Med. 2019; 33(2):335-349. PMC: 6430910. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.15423. View

Kahn S, Carr D, Faulenbach M, Utzschneider K . An examination of beta-cell function measures and their potential use for estimating beta-cell mass. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008; 10 Suppl 4:63-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00945.x. View

Vaz S, Falkmer T, Passmore A, Parsons R, Andreou P . The case for using the repeatability coefficient when calculating test-retest reliability. PLoS One. 2013; 8(9):e73990. PMC: 3767825. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073990. View

Bergman R, Phillips L, Cobelli C . Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose. J Clin Invest. 1981; 68(6):1456-67. PMC: 370948. DOI: 10.1172/jci110398. View

Muniyappa R, Lee S, Chen H, Quon M . Current approaches for assessing insulin sensitivity and resistance in vivo: advantages, limitations, and appropriate usage. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007; 294(1):E15-26. DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00645.2007. View

10.

Lindase S, Nostell K, Brojer J . A modified oral sugar test for evaluation of insulin and glucose dynamics in horses. Acta Vet Scand. 2016; 58(Suppl 1):64. PMC: 5073908. DOI: 10.1186/s13028-016-0246-z. View

11.

Lindase S, Nostell K, Soder J, Brojer J . Relationship Between β-cell Response and Insulin Sensitivity in Horses based on the Oral Sugar Test and the Euglycemic Hyperinsulinemic Clamp. J Vet Intern Med. 2017; 31(5):1541-1550. PMC: 5598889. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.14799. View

12.

Pacini G, Thomaseth K, Ahren B . Contribution to glucose tolerance of insulin-independent vs. insulin-dependent mechanisms in mice. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 281(4):E693-703. DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.2001.281.4.E693. View

13.

Lindase S, Johansson H, Mansby M, Brojer J . Repeatability of the hyperglycaemic clamp for assessment of β-cell response and insulin sensitivity in horses. Equine Vet J. 2019; 52(1):126-130. DOI: 10.1111/evj.13119. View

14.

Frank N, Tadros E . Insulin dysregulation. Equine Vet J. 2013; 46(1):103-12. DOI: 10.1111/evj.12169. View

15.

Nostell K, Lindase S, Edberg H, Brojer J . The effect of insulin infusion on heart rate and systemic blood pressure in horses with equine metabolic syndrome. Equine Vet J. 2019; 51(6):733-737. DOI: 10.1111/evj.13110. View

16.

Pratt S, Geor R, McCutcheon L . Repeatability of 2 methods for assessment of insulin sensitivity and glucose dynamics in horses. J Vet Intern Med. 2005; 19(6):883-8. DOI: 10.1892/0891-6640(2005)19[883:romfao]2.0.co;2. View

17.

Olley R, Carslake H, Ireland J, McGowan C . Comparison of fasted basal insulin with the combined glucose-insulin test in horses and ponies with suspected insulin dysregulation. Vet J. 2019; 252:105351. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.105351. View

18.

Treiber K, Kronfeld D, Hess T, Byrd B, Splan R, Staniar W . Evaluation of genetic and metabolic predispositions and nutritional risk factors for pasture-associated laminitis in ponies. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006; 228(10):1538-45. DOI: 10.2460/javma.228.10.1538. View

19.

Bamford N, Potter S, Harris P, Bailey S . Breed differences in insulin sensitivity and insulinemic responses to oral glucose in horses and ponies of moderate body condition score. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2013; 47:101-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2013.11.001. View

20.

Dunbar L, Mielnicki K, Dembek K, Toribio R, Burns T . Evaluation of Four Diagnostic Tests for Insulin Dysregulation in Adult Light-Breed Horses. J Vet Intern Med. 2016; 30(3):885-91. PMC: 4913564. DOI: 10.1111/jvim.13934. View