Discriminatory performance of adiponectin and leptin in the identification of impaired glucose tolerance: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study - Cardiovascular Disease Subcohort

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the additional discriminatory performance of adiponectin, leptin, and their ratio in the identification of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in men and women without diabetes on top of conventional risk factors.

Methods & results

A total of 698 subjects underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) and adipocytokine measurements. A comprehensive stepwise selection procedure was performed, followed by c-statistics and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis. In males, adiponectin levels were significantly lower in the IGT group compared to the non-IGT group (Whitney U test, p < 10–4), whereas leptin levels were significantly higher (p = 0.009) in IGT group. In females, adiponectin and leptin levels were not significantly different between groups (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.073 and p = 0.08, respectively). Adjusting for the most informative, sex-specific, clinical and biochemical factors, adiponectin, leptin and their ratio were not found to be significant predictors of the response to the glucose load, when modelled as continuous terms or tertiles. In males, the area-under-the-curve (AUC) for adiponectin was estimated at 0.620 (95% CI: 0.558–0.682) and the addition of adiponectin into the basic model provided a ΔAUC benefit of 0.004, showing no additional discriminatory benefit on top of conventional risk factors (IDI p-value: 0.27), nor did the addition of leptin or their ratio. The results were similar in females.

Conclusions

In Chinese individuals without diabetes, no significant evidence for the potential discriminatory value of adiponectin, leptin or their ratio in the identification of IGT on top of conventional risk factors was observed.

About the Authors:

Konstantinos A. Toulis

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, Department of Endocrinology, Thessaloniki, Greece

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2044-4253

Chao Q. Jiang

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Guangzhou Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment Centre, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China

Karla Hemming

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Kar K. Cheng

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Tai H. Lam

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China

G. Neil Thomas

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Mannheim Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany

Introduction

Insulin resistance (IR) is closely associated with abdominal adiposity, a surrogate measure of visceral adiposity. Adipocytes are considered to be hormonally active by releasing two proteins, adiponectin and leptin. Adiponectin is thought to exert insulin-sensitizing, anti-atherogenic and anti-inflammatory actions [1; 2] via peroxisome-proliferator receptor γ action [3]. Leptin, a protein circulating in proportion with body fat-cell stores, reflects nutritional status and subcutaneous fat mass, information essential for the regulation of appetite and energy expenditure by neural centres [4–6].

Interestingly, adiponectin has been found to be inversely and independently associated with IR [7; 8] and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) using a range of insulin sensitivity indices [9]. A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies confirmed that higher adiponectin concentrations were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [10]. Conversely, leptin has been reported to have a positive correlation with IR [11]. The leptin: adiponectin ratio has previously been suggested to be a better indicator of IR than the individual adipokines [12].

Despite evidence describing the associations between adiponectin, leptin and their ratio with risk of T2DM, evidence regarding their clinical utility is still unclear [10; 13; 14]. Most importantly, the literature on the performance in correctly identifying subjects with glucose tolerance status is still scarce and contradictory [15; 16]. This may be of particular concern in terms of preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, given the role of postprandial glycaemia on both the onset of CVD [17] and secondary CVD prevention [18]. Moreover, ethnic variances in adipokine have been reported and Asians may have the least favorable profile [19; 20]. Finally, it has been demonstrated in a cluster randomized trial that lifestyle intervention programme for Chinese people with impaired glucose tolerance can reduce incidence of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and diabetes over a period of 23 years [21]. Therefore, timely identification of the prediabetic state may be an issue of major public health importance.

Thus, the present study was aimed to evaluate (1) the diagnostic performance of adiponectin, leptin and their ratio in the correct classification of glucose intolerance status in men and women using oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) as the reference standard, and (2) whether adipokine levels would enhance the discriminatory value of established markers in predicting impaired glycaemic status. A positive result would be a proof of their still uncertain clinical utility and an alternative for the poorly reproducible oGTT.

Methods

Subjects and measurements

The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Guangzhou Number 12 Hospital, Guangzhou, China, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K. The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study–Cardiovascular Disease Subcohort (GBCS-CVD) consists of 1,300 participants who were intensively phenotyped for a range of surrogate markers of vascular disease as well as coagulatory and inflammatory markers [22]. A random subset of the participants (n = 698) underwent both adipokine measurement and oGTT, which was interpreted according to relevant guidelines [23]. Patients with known diabetes mellitus were excluded from the analysis. Those with a normal response to glucose load, yet with impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG, fasting glucose > 5.6 and < 7.0 mmol/L) were included in the non-IGT group for the purpose of analysis and this inclusion was then explored in sensitivity analyses. Those patients with a response to oGTT in the non-diabetic range and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measured in the diabetic range (HbA1c > 6.5%) were initially included in the study group, yet subsequently excluded in the sensitivity analyses. Detailed descriptions of the measurement methodology can be found elsewhere [22; 24]. The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study was approved by Guangzhou Medical Ethics Committee of the Chinese Medical Association, Guangzhou, China and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Statistical analysis

Subject characteristics were summarised by glycaemic status, using means and standard deviations, medians and inter-quartile ranges or numbers and percentages as appropriate. Normality was ascertained by visualisation and confirmed by Shapiro-Wilk test. Unadjusted odds ratios (IGT vs. non IGT) were then computed along with 95% confidence intervals. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was also used to examine differences between the groups. All analyses were stratified by sex.

To select important risk factors (not including adiponectin, leptin and their ratio), including anthropometric measurements, age, parental history, lipids, inflammation markers for adjustment we used a comprehensive stepwise selection procedure [25]. This procedure involved selecting for possible inclusion from potential variables the subset of covariates for which the P-value for the unadjusted odds ratio was less than 0.25. These covariates were then included in a forward stepwise selection procedure, with P-value for addition set at ≤0.05 and the P-value for removal set at ≥0.1. This was then complemented by carrying out a sensitivity check, by implementing a backwards stepwise selection procedure with P-value for addition ≤0.05 and P-value for removal ≥0.1. Any covariates which were selected for inclusion in the backwards method but not selected in the forwards method, were then added to the model selected using the forwards stepwise procedure and retained if their P-value was less than 0.1. Finally, this procedure was augmented by adding any covariates not selected so far into the model, one at a time, and retaining if their P-value was less than 0.1. All levels of categorical variables were included if one level met the inclusion criteria. Finally, to mitigate against over fitting, bootstrapping was then performed to reduce optimism and shrinkage estimates reported.

The objective was to determine the prognostic value of adiponectin and leptin, in addition to the prognostic value obtained from conventional factors (i.e. by the model selected directly above). To this end, adiponectin and leptin, individually and jointly, and the ratio of leptin to adiponectin, were added to the model selected above, to determine their predictive effects after adjustment for conventional risk factors. These factors were included firstly as continuous variables and then as categorical variables (tertiles) to allow for departures of non-linear effects.

Predictive performance of models was compared by computing c-statistics [area under the curve (AUC)] and calculating the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). The latter can be interpreted as a difference in discrimination slopes between models (difference of mean predicted probabilities of events and non-events) and a significant result (P-value < 0.05) denotes substantial improvement [26]. Model calibration was assessed by computing the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test (a P-value > 0.05 was considered indicative of an adequate fit). All continuous variables were checked for normality and those for which there was evidence of a departure from normality were transformed using an appropriate transformation. All continuous variables were then standardized onto the z-scale by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. This means that all OR for continuous variables can be interpreted as increase in odds per standard deviation. No data were missing and no imputation analyses were performed. All analyses were carried out in Stata 11.2 SE.

Results

Out of 698 subjects (354 males, 344 females), one hundred ninety-six (106 males and 90 females) subjects were found to have IGT. Gender-specific sample characteristics, along with results from univariate logistic regression analyses, are presented in Table 1. Sex-specific AUCs for the prediction of IGT status using adiponectin, leptin or their ratio were calculated and presented along with AUCs for other predictors and that of basic model, consisted of the conventional predictors selected through the variable selection strategy (Table 2). Of note, AUC for adiponectin was generally not inferior compared to the AUCs of the most informative clinical and biochemical markers in males without diabetes.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Sex-specific characteristics and results from univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206964.t001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Areas under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analysis for the prediction of impaired glucose tolerance (conventional predictors).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206964.t002

In males, adiponectin levels were significantly lower in the IGT (cases) group as compared to the non-IGT (control) group (Whitney U test, p < 10−4), whereas leptin levels and leptin:adiponectin ratio were significantly higher (p = 0.009 and p < 10−4 respectively) in IGT group (Table 1). Table 3 shows that the AUC for the prediction of IGT with adiponectin was estimated at 0.62 (95% CI: 0.56–0.68) in males. Table 4 shows that when modelled as a continuous term adjusting for established conventional factors as selected from the stringent variable selection strategy [fasting glucose, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol], adiponectin was not found to be a significant predictor of IGT status [0.86 (0.67–1.10)]. To test for non-linear effects, adiponectin tertiles were also examined and again found to be non-significant. Leptin, leptin:adiponectin and both adiponectin and leptin also did not show any statistical significance (Table 4). The addition of adiponectin essentially showed no discriminatory benefit when compared to the model consisted of traditional markers in terms of AUC (ΔAUC = 0.004, IDI estimate: 0.003, p-value: 0.27), neither did the addition of leptin (IDI p-value: 0.18) or their ratio (IDI p-value: 0.09) (Table 3). Sensitivity analyses (1) with the exclusion of patients with IFG and (2) with the exclusion of those patients with HbA1c ≥ 6.5% but with a response to oGTT in the non-diabetic range did not alter the findings (data not shown).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Areas under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analysis for the prediction of impaired glucose tolerance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206964.t003

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Sex-specific odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for impaired glucose tolerance prediction according to adipocytokine levels adjusting for conventional factors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206964.t004

In females, there was no evidence that adiponectin and leptin levels were different between groups (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.073 and p = 0.08, respectively), but leptin:adiponectin ratios differed significantly (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.023). Adjusting for waist:hip ratio, fasting glucose, total cholesterol: HDL cholesterol ratio and apolipoprotein, none of the adipocytokines were significant predictors of oGTT-based classification (Table 4) or conferred any discriminatory benefit in addition to that of the basic model (Table 3). Finally, analysis using tertiles of adiponectin, leptin or their ratio adjusting for the selected conventional factors showed similar negative findings (Table 4). Sensitivity analyses did not alter the findings (data not shown).

Discussion

In this cross-sectional analysis, although the AUC for adiponectin in regards to IGT prediction was generally not inferior compared to the AUCs of the most informative clinical and biochemical markers in males non-diabetics, it was rather modest (0.62) and the inclusion of adiponectin did not have discernible benefit over that of the conventional risk factors. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that adiponectin, leptin or their ratio were significant predictors of the response to the oral glucose load. They showed no substantial discriminatory value in identifying IGT in subjects without diabetes when conventional predictors were taken into account. This finding was robust in all analyses, either when the adipocytokines were analysed as continuous variables or in tertiles. Of note, this study was not design to assess the predictive ability of adipocytokines in the subsequent development of T2DM.

The pathophysiology underlying the previously reported association in the literature is not fully elucidated [27]. It appears that adiponectin improves insulin sensitivity by increasing fatty acid oxidation in muscle, and affects glucose homeostasis by suppressing hepatic glucose production [1]. In addition to these peripheral actions, adiponectin might have direct effects on beta cells and thus could be considered as a positive, dual regulator of both insulin sensitivity and secretion [5]. Moreover, the pattern of sex differences, the so-called “sexual dimorphism” in adiponectin, which might be explained on the basis of different fat amount and the influences of sex hormones [28], was also observed in the present study and generally in the literature [29; 30]. Failure of leptin to demonstrate discriminative power in IGT prediction may be explained, in part, by the observation that the effects of leptin on glucose metabolism are much less pronounced in human skeletal muscle compared with results from animal studies and by the hypothesis that in humans, leptin may hold a rather regulatory than instant-acting role in the “adipoinsular axis” [6]. Impaired fasting glycaemia is a rather multifaceted condition, a global indicator of suboptimal glucose handling, potentially reflecting several different underlying pathophysiologies, ranging from decreased beta-cell mass to insulin resistance or genetic defects. Thus, another potential explanation for the negative findings is the heterogeneous nature of the condition.

People with IGT represent an asymptomatic subpopulation with increased CVD risk [31] and there is evidence to suggest that increased risk for CVD observed in IGT is due, at least in part, to lower-than-normal levels of adiponectin [27; 32]. Ko et al investigated the discriminatory performance of adiponectin jointly with waist circumference in middle-aged males [15]; yet, that analysis did not include females or leptin. Also, ROC analysis was reported only for diabetes prediction [AUC = 0.642) and not for IGT and most importantly, potentially important confounders such as fasting glucose, insulin, HbA1c or inflammation markers were not taken into consideration. Wu et al also provided an evaluation of the discriminatory ability of several biomarkers, including adiponectin (AUC = 0.64 for diabetes prediction), using a weighted biomarker risk score [14]; however, the analysis did not account for fasting glucose, insulin and HbA1c, and an oGTT was not performed. Kolberg et al provided an elegant assessment of the discriminatory ability of six selected biomarkers, including adiponectin, for the prediction of diabetes, but they did not include IGT as an outcome [13].

The present study had several limitations. First, high-molecular weight (HMW) adiponectin, the “active” adiponectin, was not investigated, preventing the confirmation of the reported lack of the oGTT-induced transient decrease in HMW adiponectin in subjects with IGT [33]. Secondly, it should be noted that 84 subjects with IFG (46 males and 38 females) were included into the normal glucose tolerance group. This decision was based on the distinct aetiologies between IGT and IFG [34], the essentially differential roles of incretin hormones and insulin action [35] and the disparate pattern of HMW adiponectin response to an oral glucose load [33]. However, exclusion of these subjects did not change the results.

In summary, the role of adipocytokines in the detection of IGT was explored in a well characterized group of Chinese individuals without diabetes. Through a detailed analysis adjusting for multiple potential confounders, no significant evidence for their potential discriminatory value in addition to conventional risk factors in the identification of IGT was observed.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to PLOS ONE expert Reviewers, whose comments greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Citation: Toulis KA, Jiang CQ, Hemming K, Nirantharakumar K, Cheng KK, Lam TH, et al. (2018) Discriminatory performance of adiponectin and leptin in the identification of impaired glucose tolerance: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study - Cardiovascular Disease Subcohort. PLoS ONE 13(11): e0206964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206964

References

1. Esteve E, Ricart W, Fernandez-Real JM: Adipocytokines and insulin resistance: the possible role of lipocalin-2, retinol binding protein-4, and adiponectin. Diabetes Care 2009;32 Suppl 2:S362–367

2. Kadowaki T, Yamauchi T: Adiponectin and adiponectin receptors. Endocr Rev 2005;26:439–451 pmid:15897298

3. Ziemke F, Mantzoros CS: Adiponectin in insulin resistance: lessons from translational research. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:258S–261S pmid:19906806

4. Rasouli N, Kern PA: Adipocytokines and the metabolic complications of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:S64–73 pmid:18987272

5. Lee YH, Magkos F, Mantzoros CS, Kang ES: Effects of leptin and adiponectin on pancreatic beta-cell function. Metabolism 2011;60:1664–1672 pmid:21632069

6. Mantzoros CS, Magkos F, Brinkoetter M, Sienkiewicz E, Dardeno TA, Kim SY et al.: Leptin in human physiology and pathophysiology. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2011;301:E567–584 pmid:21791620

7. Abbasi F, Chu JW, Lamendola C, McLaughlin T, Hayden J, Reaven GM, et al.: Discrimination between obesity and insulin resistance in the relationship with adiponectin. Diabetes 2004;53:585–590 pmid:14988241

8. Tso AW, Sham PC, Wat NM, Xu A, Cheung BM, Rong R, et al.: Polymorphisms of the gene encoding adiponectin and glycaemic outcome of Chinese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: a 5-year follow-up study. Diabetologia 2006;49:1806–1815 pmid:16788799

9. Kadowaki T, Yamauchi T, Kubota N, Hara K, Ueki K, Tobe K: Adiponectin and adiponectin receptors in insulin resistance, diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome. J Clin Invest 2006;116:1784–1792 pmid:16823476

10. Li S, Shin HJ, Ding EL, van Dam RM: Adiponectin levels and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2009;302:179–188 pmid:19584347

11. Inoue M, Maehata E, Yano M, Taniyama M, Suzuki S: Correlation between the adiponectin-leptin ratio and parameters of insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. Metabolism 2005;54:281–286 pmid:15736103

12. Thorand B, Zierer A, Baumert J, Meisinger C, Herder C, Koenig W: Associations between leptin and the leptin / adiponectin ratio and incident Type 2 diabetes in middle-aged men and women: results from the MONICA / KORA Augsburg study 1984–2002. Diabet Med 2010;27:1004–1011 pmid:20722673

13. Kolberg JA, Jorgensen T, Gerwien RW, Hamren S, McKenna MP, Moler E, et al.: Development of a type 2 diabetes risk model from a panel of serum biomarkers from the Inter99 cohort. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1207–1212 pmid:19564473

14. Wu H, Yu Z, Qi Q, Li H, Sun Q, Lin X: Joint analysis of multiple biomarkers for identifying type 2 diabetes in middle-aged and older Chinese: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000191 pmid:22021786

15. Ko GT, So WY, Tong P, Ma RC, Kong AP, Ozaki R, Y et al.: Hypoadiponectinaemia enhances waist circumference as a predictor of glucose intolerance and clustering of risk factors in Chinese men. Diabetes Metab 2010;36:192–197 pmid:20202879

16. Ong KL, Tso AW, Xu A, Law LS, Li M, Wat NM, et al.: Evaluation of the combined use of adiponectin and C-reactive protein levels as biomarkers for predicting the deterioration in glycaemia after a median of 5.4 years. Diabetologia 2011;54:2552–2560 pmid:21727999

17. Ceriello A: Postprandial hyperglycemia and diabetes complications: is it time to treat? Diabetes 2005;54:1–7 pmid:15616004

18. Raz I, Ceriello A, Wilson PW, Battioui C, Su EW, Kerr L, et al.: Post hoc subgroup analysis of the HEART2D trial demonstrates lower cardiovascular risk in older patients targeting postprandial versus fasting/premeal glycemia. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1511–1513 pmid:21593301

19. Mente A, Razak F, Blankenberg S, Vuksan V, Davis AD, Miller R, T et al.: Study of the Health A, Risk E, Study of the Health A, Risk Evaluation in Aboriginal Peoples I: Ethnic variation in adiponectin and leptin levels and their association with adiposity and insulin resistance. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1629–1634 pmid:20413520

20. Choi YS, Yang HI, Cho S, Jung JA, Jeon YE, Kim HY, et al.: Serum asymmetric dimethylarginine, apelin, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels in non-obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Steroids 2012;77:1352–1358 pmid:22944040

21. Li G, Zhang P, Wang J, An Y, Gong Q, Gregg EW, et al.: Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and diabetes incidence after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance in the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: a 23-year follow-up study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2:474–480 pmid:24731674

22. Jiang CQ, Lam TH, Lin JM, Liu B, Yue XJ, Cheng KK et al.: An overview of the Guangzhou biobank cohort study-cardiovascular disease subcohort (GBCS-CVD): a platform for multidisciplinary collaboration. J Hum Hypertens 2009;24:139–150 pmid:19587700

23. American Diabetes Association: Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1183–1197 pmid:9203460

24. Toulis KA, Jiang CQ, Hemming K, Nirantharakumar K, Cheng KK, Lam TH, et al.: Glycated Hemoglobin, Albuminuria and Surrogate Markers of Macrovascular Disease in Adults Without Diabetes: The Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study, Cardiovascular Disease Subcohort. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:245–250 e241 pmid:28689704

25. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley series in probability and statistics 2000;second edition

26. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr., D'Agostino RB Jr., Vasan RS: Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008;27:157–172; discussion 207–112 pmid:17569110

27. Nakashima Y, Inukai K, Imai K, Ikegami Y, Awata T, Katayama S: Involvement of low adiponectin levels in impaired glucose tolerance. Metabolism 2008;57:1350–1354 pmid:18803937

28. Nishizawa H, Shimomura I, Kishida K, Maeda N, Kuriyama H, Nagaretani H, et al.: Androgens decrease plasma adiponectin, an insulin-sensitizing adipocyte-derived protein. Diabetes 2002;51:2734–2741 pmid:12196466

29. Cheung BM, Li M, Ong KL, Wat NM, Tam S, Pang RW, et al.: High density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels increase with age in American women but not in Hong Kong Chinese women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2009;70:561–568

30. Rasmussen JJ, Schou M, Selmer C, Johansen ML, Gustafsson F, Frystyk J, et al.: Insulin sensitivity in relation to fat distribution and plasma adipocytokines among abusers of anabolic androgenic steroids. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2017;87:249–256

31. Tominaga M, Eguchi H, Manaka H, Igarashi K, Kato T, Sekikawa A: Impaired glucose tolerance is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but not impaired fasting glucose. The Funagata Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 1999;22:920–924 pmid:10372242

32. Otsuka F, Sugiyama S, Kojima S, Maruyoshi H, Funahashi T, Sakamoto T, et al.: Hypoadiponectinemia is associated with impaired glucose tolerance and coronary artery disease in non-diabetic men. Circ J 2007;71:1703–1709 pmid:17965488

33. Ozeki N, Hara K, Yatsuka C, Nakano T, Matsumoto S, Suetsugu M, et al.: Serum high-molecular weight adiponectin decreases abruptly after an oral glucose load in subjects with normal glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose, but not those with impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 2009;58:1470–1476 pmid:19592051

34. Faerch K, Borch-Johnsen K, Holst JJ, Vaag A: Pathophysiology and aetiology of impaired fasting glycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance: does it matter for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes? Diabetologia 2009;52:1714–1723 pmid:19590846

35. Faerch K, Vaag A, Holst JJ, Glumer C, Pedersen O, Borch-Johnsen K: Impaired fasting glycaemia vs impaired glucose tolerance: similar impairment of pancreatic alpha and beta cell function but differential roles of incretin hormones and insulin action. Diabetologia 2008;51:853–861 pmid:18317726