Table 2.
Correlation between insulin sensitivity (lean M value) and renal hemodynamic function
| Univariable analyses | ||
|---|---|---|
| r | P | |
| GFR, mL/min | −0.44 | 0.004 |
| ERPF, mL/min | −0.22 | 0.162 |
| FF, % | −0.40 | 0.008 |
| ERBF, mL/min | −0.27 | 0.076 |
| RVR, mmHg/mL/min | 0.26 | 0.087 |
| ln albuminuria, mg/day | −0.29 | 0.063 |
| Multivariable analyses with GFR (mL/min) | ||
| Model 1 (adjustment for age, sex, RASi use, and HbA1c) | Model 2 (model 1 adjustments + M value) | |
| Age, years | β ± SE = −1.12 ± 0.50, P = 0.032 | β ± SE = −1.13 ± 0.44, P = 0.015 |
| Sex, male/female | β ± SE = −22.05 ± 8.25, P = 0.011 | β ± SE = −20.00 ± 7.26, P = 0.009 |
| RAS inhibitor, yes/no | β ± SE = 16.91 ± 7.95, P = 0.040 | β ± SE = 16.47 ± 6.97, P = 0.024 |
| HbA1c, mmol/mol | β ± SE = −0.15 ± 0.49, P = 0.765 | β ± SE = −0.26 ± 0.43, P = 0.551 |
| M value, mg/kglean · min | — | β ± SE = −3.50 ± 0.99, P = 0.001 |
| R2 = 0.38/P = 0.001 | R2 = 0.53/P < 0.001 | |
| Multivariable analyses with FF (mL/min) | ||
| Model 1 (adjustment for age, sex, RASi use, and HbA1c) | Model 2 (model 1 adjustments + M value) | |
| Age, years | β ± SE = 0.03 ± 0.07, P = 0.701 | β ± SE = 0.02 ± 0.6, P = 0.693 |
| Sex, male/female | β ± SE = −2.27 ± 1.07, P = 0.040 | β ± SE = −2.06 ± 1.00, P = 0.046 |
| RASi, yes/no | β ± SE = 0.15 ± 1.03, P = 0.885 | β ± SE = 0.11 ± 0.96, P = 0.913 |
| HbA1c, mmol/mol | β ± SE = 0.01 ± 0.06, P = 0.880 | β ± SE = −0.00 ± 0.06, P = 0.977 |
| M value, mg/kglean · min | — | β ± SE = −0.36 ± 0.14, P = 0.013 |
| R2 = 0.12/P = 0.300 | R2 = 0.26/P = 0.045 | |
Univariable analysis with Pearson correlation is shown. Also shown is multivariable approach to assess whether GFR and FF are still significantly associated with insulin sensitivity after correction for clinical characteristics. Model 1 included age, sex, RAS inhibitor (RASi) use, and HbA1c. In model 2, M value was added. Significant correlations are highlighted in boldface type. ERPF, effective renal plasma flow.