Academic radiology department subspeciality organization & fellowship offerings: A hodgepodge.

INTRODUCTION: As opportunities for radiologists to subspecialize have increased, many avenues to organize Radiology department subspecialties exist. This study seeks to determine how academic U.S. Radiology departments structure themselves with respect to subspecialty divisions/sections, as there are no current standards for how Radiology departments are subdivided. Additionally, the extent of Radiology fellowships offered are assessed. The websites of academic U.S. Radiology departments, a highly influential source of information, were analyzed to perform this study. MATERIALS & METHODS: Radiology department websites of all allopathic U.S. medical schools (n = 148) were assessed for the following: presence/absence of Radiology department subdivisions, division/section labels, number of divisions/sections, division/section titles, presence/absence of Radiology fellowships, number of fellowships, and fellowships titles. RESULTS: 114/148 (77 %) medical schools had Radiology department websites. According to their respective websites, 66/114 (58 %) academic Radiology departments had subspecialty divisions/sections, whereas 48/114 (42 %) had no divisions/sections listed. Of the departments that had divisions/sections, the median number of divisions/sections per department was nine, and ranged from two to 14. Fellowships were offered at 82/114 (72 %) academic Radiology departments that had websites, and the median number was six, ranging from one to 13. CONCLUSION: There is marked heterogeneity of departmental organization across Radiology departments nationwide, likely due to the lack of current standards for how Radiology departments are subdivided into divisions/sections. Of the 77 % of medical schools that have Radiology department websites, only 58 % of departments listed divisions/sections, and 72 % posted fellowship offerings.

Minimal Model-Derived Insulin Sensitivity Index Underestimates Insulin Sensitivity in Black Americans.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ethnic differences in insulin sensitivity (SI) as measured by the minimal model approach (SI-MM) and the reference method, the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp (EHC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a prospective study design, thirty Black Americans (BA) were age, sex, and BMI matched with non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). Participants underwent frequently sampled intravenous tolerance test (FSIVGTT) and EHC on 2 separate days during a single visit. RESULTS: SI-MM values were significantly lower in BA when compared with NHW (0.035 ± 0.025 vs. 0.058 ± 0.036 [dL/min]/[µU/mL]; P = 0.003). However, there were no ethnic differences in SI measured by EHC (0.028 ± 0.012 vs. 0.035 ± 0.019 [dL/min]/[µU/mL]; P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: SI-MM systematically underestimates SI in BA when compared with NHW. These findings suggest that studies inferring lower SI in BA based on FSIVGTT and SI-MM should be interpreted cautiously.

Mifepristone Improves Adipose Tissue Insulin Sensitivity in Insulin Resistant Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Increased tissue cortisol availability has been implicated in abnormal glucose and fat metabolism in patients with obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Our objective was to evaluate whether blockade of glucocorticoid receptor (GR) with mifepristone ameliorates insulin resistance (IR) in overweight/obese subjects with glucose intolerance. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study in overweight/obese individuals (n = 16, 44% female) with prediabetes or mild T2DM but not clinical hypercortisolism. Mifepristone (50 mg every 6 h) or placebo was administered for 9 days, followed by crossover to the other treatment arm after a washout period of 6 to 8weeks. At baseline and following each treatment, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT) were performed. Insulin sensitivity was measured using FSIVGTT [primary outcome: insulin sensitivity index (SI)] and OGTT [Matsuda index (MI) and oral glucose insulin sensitivity index (OGIS)]. Hepatic and adipose insulin resistance were assessed using hepatic insulin resistance index (HIRI), and adipose tissue insulin sensitivity index (Adipo-SI) and adipo-IR, derived from the FSIVGTT. RESULTS: Mifepristone administration did not alter whole-body glucose disposal indices of insulin sensitivity (SI, MI, and OGIS). GR blockade significantly improved Adipo-SI (61.7 ±â€…32.9 vs 42.8 ±â€…23.9; P = 0.002) and reduced adipo-IR (49.9 ±â€…45.9 vs 65.5 ±â€…43.8; P = 0.004), and HIRI (50.2 ±â€…38.7 vs 70.0 ±â€…44.3; P = 0.08). Mifepristone increased insulin clearance but did not affect insulin secretion or ß-cell glucose sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Short-term mifepristone administration improves adipose and hepatic insulin sensitivity among obese individuals with hyperglycemia without hypercortisolism.

Insulin sensitivity and pancreatic ß-cell function in patients with primary aldosteronism.

BACKGROUND: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is associated with an increased risk for dysglycemia. However, the effects of hyperaldosteronism on insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function are unclear. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, we assessed insulin sensitivity and pancreatic ß-cell function from an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in patients from two cohorts: subjects with PA (n = 21) and essential hypertension control (EHC) subjects (n = 22). Age, sex, BMI, and mean arterial pressure adjusted measures of insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function were compared between the groups. RESULTS: PA individuals were less insulin sensitive compared to EHC subjects (Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index [QUICKI]: 0.340 ± 0.006 vs. 0.374 ± 0.013, p < 0.001; Matsuda index: 4.14 ± 0.49 vs. 7.87 ± 1.42, p < 0.001; SI: 11.45 ± 4.85 vs. 21.23 ± 6.11 dL/kg/min per µU/mL, p = 0.02). The hepatic insulin resistance index (HIRI) was higher in PA subjects (PA: 5.61 ± 1.01 vs. EHC: 4.13 ± 0.61, p = 0.002). The insulinogenic index (IGI), an index of ß-cell function was higher in the PA cohort (PA: 1.49 ± 0.27 vs. 1.11 ± 0.21 µU/mL/mg/dL, p = 0.03). However, the oral disposition index (DI) was similar between the groups (PA: 4.77 ± 0.73 vs. EHC: 5.46 ± 0.85, p = 0.42), which likely accounts for the similar glucose tolerance between the two cohorts, despite lower sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, insulin sensitivity is significantly lower in PA with an appropriately compensated ß-cell function. These results suggest that excess aldosterone and/or other steroids in the context of PA may negatively affect insulin action without adversely impacting ß-cell function.

Metabolomic Analysis of the Effects of Leptin Replacement Therapy in Patients with Lipodystrophy.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Leptin treatment has dramatic clinical effects on glucose and lipid metabolism in leptin-deficient patients with lipodystrophy. Further elucidation of metabolic effects of exogenous leptin therapy will shed light on understanding leptin physiology in humans. Our objective was to utilize metabolomic profiling to examine the changes associated with administration of short-term metreleptin therapy in patients with lipodystrophy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a pre-post-treatment study in 19 patients (75% female) with varying forms of lipodystrophy (congenital generalized lipodystrophy, n = 10; acquired generalized lipodystrophy, n = 1; familial partial lipodystrophy, n = 8) who received daily subcutaneous metreleptin injections for a period of 16 to 23 weeks. A 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test and body composition measurements were conducted before and after the treatment period, and fasting blood samples were used for metabolomic profiling. The study outcome aimed at measuring changes in physiologically relevant metabolites before and after leptin therapy. RESULTS: Metabolomic analysis revealed changes in pathways involving branched-chain amino acid metabolism, fatty acid oxidation, protein degradation, urea cycle, tryptophan metabolism, nucleotide catabolism, vitamin E, and steroid metabolism. Fold changes in pre- to post-treatment metabolite levels indicated increased breakdown of fatty acids, branched chain amino acids proteins, and nucleic acids. CONCLUSIONS: Leptin replacement therapy has significant effects on important metabolic pathways implicated in patients with lipodystrophy. Continued metabolomic studies may provide further insight into the mechanisms of action of leptin replacement therapy and provide novel biomarkers of lipodystrophy.Abbreviations: 1,5-AG, 1,5-anhydroglucitol; 11ßHSD1, 11-ß hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 1; BCAA, branched-chain amino acid; FFA, free fatty acid; GC-MS, gas chromatography mass spectrometry; IDO, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase; IFN-γ, interferon-γ; m/z, mass to charge ratio; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; TDO, tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α; UPLC-MS/MS, ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Assessing the predictive accuracy of oral glucose effectiveness index using a calibration model.

PURPOSE: Current reference methods for measuring glucose effectiveness (GE) are the somatostatin pancreatic glucose clamp and minimal model analysis of frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test (FSIVGTT), both of which are laborious and not feasible in large epidemiological studies. Consequently, surrogate indices derived from an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to measure GE (oGE) have been proposed and used in many studies. However, the predictive accuracy of these surrogates has not been formally validated. In this study, we used a calibration model analysis to evaluate the accuracy of surrogate indices to predict GE from the reference FSIVGTT (SgMM). METHODS: Subjects (n = 123, mean age 48 ± 11 years; BMI 35.9 ± 7.3 kg/m2) with varying glucose tolerance (NGT, n = 37; IFG/IGT, n = 78; and T2DM, n = 8) underwent FSIVGTT and OGTT on two separate days. Predictive accuracy was assessed by both root mean squared error (RMSE) of prediction and leave-one-out cross-validation-type RMSE of prediction (CVPE). RESULTS: As expected, insulin sensitivity, SgMM, and oGE were reduced in subjects with T2DM and IFG/IGT when compared with NGT. Simple linear regression analyses revealed a modest but significant relationship between oGE and SgMM (r = 0.25, p < 0.001). However, using calibration model, measured SgMM and predicted SgMM derived from oGE were modestly correlated (r = 0.21, p < 0.05) with the best fit line suggesting poor predictive accuracy. There were no significant differences in CVPE and RMSE among the surrogates, suggesting similar predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: Although OGTT-derived surrogate indices of GE are convenient and feasible, they have limited ability to robustly predict GE.

Effects of growth hormone on hepatic insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness in healthy older adults.

PURPOSE: Growth hormone (GH) replacement decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy individuals. However, the effects of GH on organ-specific insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness are not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of GH administration for 26 weeks on muscle and hepatic insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness in healthy older individuals. METHODS: This report is from a 26-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group trial in healthy, ambulatory, community-dwelling older women and men. We compared surrogate indices of insulin sensitivity [quantitative insulin-sensitivity check index (QUICKI), muscle insulin sensitivity index (MISI), hepatic insulin resistance index (HIRI)] and glucose effectiveness [oral glucose effectiveness index (oGE)] derived from oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in subjects before and after 26 weeks of administration of GH (n = 17) or placebo (n = 15) as an exploratory outcome. RESULTS: GH administration for 26 weeks significantly increased fasting insulin concentrations and HIRI but did not significantly change MISI or oGE compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: GH administration for 26 weeks in healthy older subjects impairs insulin sensitivity in the liver but not skeletal muscle and does not alter glucose effectiveness.

Predictive Accuracy of Surrogate Indices for Hepatic and Skeletal Muscle Insulin Sensitivity.

CONTEXT: Surrogate indices of muscle and hepatic insulin sensitivity derived from an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) are frequently used in clinical studies. However, the predictive accuracy of these indices has not been validated. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic glucose clamp with tritiated glucose infusion and a 75-g OGTT were performed in individuals (n = 659, aged 18 to 49 years, body mass index of 16 to 64 kg/m2) with varying degrees of glucose tolerance. A calibration model was used to assess the ability of OGTT-derived, tissue-specific surrogate indices [hepatic insulin resistance index (HIRI) and muscle insulin sensitivity index (MISI)] to predict insulin sensitivity/resistance indices derived from the reference glucose clamp [Hepatic-IRbasal, a product of fasting plasma insulin and hepatic glucose production (HGP), Hepatic-IRclamp, reciprocal of the percent suppression of HGP during the insulin clamp corrected for plasma insulin concentration, and Muscle-ISclamp, a measure of peripheral glucose disposal]. Predictive accuracy was assessed by root mean squared error of prediction and leave-one-out, cross-validation-type square root of the mean squared error of prediction. RESULTS: HIRI and MISI were correlated with their respective clamp-derived indices. HIRI was negatively related to Muscle-ISclamp (r = -0.62, P < 0.0001) and MISI correlated with Hepatic-IR derived from the clamp (Hepatic-IRbasal: r = -0.48, P < 0.0001 and Hepatic-IRclamp: r = -0.41, P < 0.0001). However, the accuracy of HIRI and MISI to predict Hepatic-IR (basal or during clamp) was not significantly different. Likewise, the ability of HIRI and MISI to predict Muscle-ISclamp was also similar. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the surrogate indices derived from an OGTT are accurate in predicting insulin sensitivity but are not tissue specific.