Why the study?
To evaluate the relationship between the METS-IR index and MACEs, and compare its predictive ability against other insulin resistance indices such as HOMA-IR and TyG-related parameters.
Does the METS-IR index predict major adverse cardiac events better than other insulin resistance indices in Chinese adults with and without diabetes?
Does the METS-IR index predict major adverse cardiac events better than other insulin resistance indices in Chinese adults with and without diabetes?
The METS-IR index is an effective clinical indicator for predicting major adverse cardiac events, demonstrating superior predictive power compared to other insulin resistance indices in individuals with diabetes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
METS-IR may flag higher MACE risk in diabetes cohorts; leaves open incremental value over standard predictors in prospective studies.
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To investigate the relationship between the metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) index and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and to compare its ability to predict MACEs with other IR indices including homeostatic model assessment for IR (HOMA-IR) and triglyceride glucose (TyG) index-related parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study enrolling 7,291 participants aged ≥40 years. Binary logistic regression and restricted cubic splines were performed to determine the association between METS-IR and MACEs, and the receiver operating curve (ROC) was utilized to compare the predictive abilities of IR indices and to determine the optimal cut-off points. RESULTS: There were 348 (4.8%) cases of MACEs during a median follow-up of 3.8 years. Compared with participants with a METS-IR in the lowest quartile, the multivariate-adjusted RRs and 95% CIs for participants with a METS-IR in the highest quartile were 1.47 (1.05-2.77) in all participants, 1.42 (1.18-2.54) for individuals without diabetes, and 1.75 (1.11-6.46) for individuals with diabetes. Significant interactions were found between the METS-IR and the risk of MACEs by sex in all participants and by age and sex in individuals without diabetes (all P values for interaction < 0.05). In the ROC analysis, the METS-IR had a higher AUC value than other indices for predicting MACEs in individuals with diabetes and had a comparable or higher AUC than other indices for individuals without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The METS-IR can be an effective clinical indicator for identifying MACEs, as it had superior predictive power when compared with other IR indices in individuals with diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: