Population and individual minimal modeling of the frequently sampled insulin-modified intravenous glucose tolerance test.

Population approaches are more robust estimators of insulin sensitivity (SI) and glucose effectiveness (SG) with the minimal model of glucose kinetics during an intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT). We assessed the performance of 3 population methods, iterative two-stage (ITS), Bayesian hierarchical Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), and NONMEM first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with interaction (NM), and made a comparison with the standard two-stage method (STS) employing the weighted nonlinear regression analysis. To evaluate accuracy of individual and population estimates, 40 simulated insulin-modified frequently sampled IVGTTs (IM-FSIVGTT) were derived from real IM-FSIVGTTs (0.3 g glucose per kg body weight with 0.02 U/kg insulin at 20 minutes; 30 samples over 180 minutes) performed in 40 healthy Caucasian subjects (male/female, 22/18; age, 46 +/- 9 years; body mass index [BMI], 26.7 +/- 5.7 kg. m(-2); mean +/- SD). The population methods assumed a log-normal population distribution of parameters. All methods gave a similar but overestimated population SG by 9% to 13%. Population SI was underestimated to a different degree by the methods (STS 6%, ITS 10%, MCMC 13%, and NM 7%). The between-subject variability of SG was overestimated by STS and underestimated by the population methods (true 33%, STS 40%, ITS 19%, MCMC 24%, NM 24%; coefficient of variation). For SI, this quantity was well estimated by all methods (true 79%, STS 80%, ITS 82%, MCMC 83%, NM 82%). The results for individual estimates indicate that STS performs better than the population methods when estimating SI (STS 12%, ITS 16%, MCMC 16%, NM 16%; 1 outlying subject excluded; root mean squared error expressed as percent of mean) but worse for SG (STS 28%, ITS 21%, MCMC 20%, NM 19%). We conclude that the robust performance of population approaches, preventing parameter estimation failures associated with the nonlinear regression analysis, is not required with IM-FSIVGTT in subjects with normal glucose tolerance. The standard two-stage technique is the preferred method under such circumstances.

[1]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Statistics: An Introduction , 1998 .

[2]  J LunnDavid,et al.  WinBUGS A Bayesian modelling framework , 2000 .

[3]  L. Joseph,et al.  Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction , 1989 .

[4]  Giovanni Sparacino,et al.  Minimal model S(I)=0 problem in NIDDM subjects: nonzero Bayesian estimates with credible confidence intervals. , 2002, American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism.

[5]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[6]  I. Godsland,et al.  Maximizing the success rate of minimal model insulin sensitivity measurement in humans: the importance of basal glucose levels. , 2001, Clinical science.

[7]  R N Bergman,et al.  Assessment of insulin sensitivity in vivo. , 1985, Endocrine reviews.

[8]  David Z. D'Argenio,et al.  Advanced Methods of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Systems Analysis , 2004, Springer US.

[9]  A. De Gaetano,et al.  NONMEM improves group parameter estimation for the minimal model of glucose kinetics. , 1996, The American journal of physiology.

[10]  David J. Lunn,et al.  Bayesian hierarchical approach to estimate insulin sensitivity by minimal model. , 2003, Clinical science.

[11]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice , 1997 .

[12]  Richard M Watanabe,et al.  A Comparison Between the Minimal Model and the Glucose Clamp in the Assessment of Insulin Sensitivity Across the Spectrum of Glucose Tolerance , 1994, Diabetes.

[13]  J F Boisvieux,et al.  Alternative approaches to estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: comparison with the nonlinear mixed-effect model. , 1984, Drug metabolism reviews.

[14]  Y. Z. Ider,et al.  Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. , 1979, The American journal of physiology.

[15]  P Vicini,et al.  The iterative two-stage population approach to IVGTT minimal modeling: improved precision with reduced sampling. Intravenous glucose tolerance test. , 2001, American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism.

[16]  K. Grohmann,et al.  [Intravenous glucose tolerance test]. , 1971, Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift.

[17]  L. Skovgaard NONLINEAR MODELS FOR REPEATED MEASUREMENT DATA. , 1996 .