营养不良?在没有糖尿病的成年人中,重复的饮食会导致不可靠的个体血糖反应,这是通过连续血糖监测仪在三种饮食模式下测量的。

Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall
{"title":"营养不良?在没有糖尿病的成年人中,重复的饮食会导致不可靠的个体血糖反应,这是通过连续血糖监测仪在三种饮食模式下测量的。","authors":"Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall","doi":"10.1101/2023.06.14.23291406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are being used to characterize postprandial glycemic responses and thereby provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glycemic excursions. However, the efficacy of such advice depends on reliable CGM responses.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate meals in an inpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CGM data were collected in two controlled feeding studies (NCT03407053 and NCT03878108) in 30 participants without diabetes capturing 1056 meal responses in duplicate ~1 week apart from four dietary patterns. One study used two different CGMs (Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum) whereas the other study used only Dexcom. We calculated the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for each 2-h post-meal period and compared within-subject iAUCs using the same CGM for the duplicate meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analyses, and compared individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals versus different meals using standard deviations (SDs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were weak to moderate positive linear correlations between within- subject iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott r=0.47, p<0.0001, Dexcom r=0.43, p<0.0001), with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.31, Dexcom 0.14). Bland-Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (Abbott -31.3 to 31.5 mg/dL, Dexcom -30.8 to 30.4 mg/dL) but no significant bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott 0.1 mg/dL, Dexcom -0.2 mg/dL). Individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott (SD<sub>duplicate</sub> = 10.7 mg/dL , SD<sub>week 1</sub> =12.4 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 2</sub> =11.6 mg/dL, <i>p</i>=0.38) and Dexcom (SD<sub>duplicate</sub> = 11.1 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 1</sub> = 11.5 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 2</sub> =11.9 mg/dL, <i>p</i>=0.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were unreliable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice based on CGM measurements in adults without diabetes requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.</p>","PeriodicalId":18659,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10371100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across four dietary patterns in adults without diabetes.\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2023.06.14.23291406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are being used to characterize postprandial glycemic responses and thereby provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glycemic excursions. However, the efficacy of such advice depends on reliable CGM responses.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate meals in an inpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CGM data were collected in two controlled feeding studies (NCT03407053 and NCT03878108) in 30 participants without diabetes capturing 1056 meal responses in duplicate ~1 week apart from four dietary patterns. One study used two different CGMs (Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum) whereas the other study used only Dexcom. We calculated the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for each 2-h post-meal period and compared within-subject iAUCs using the same CGM for the duplicate meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analyses, and compared individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals versus different meals using standard deviations (SDs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were weak to moderate positive linear correlations between within- subject iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott r=0.47, p<0.0001, Dexcom r=0.43, p<0.0001), with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.31, Dexcom 0.14). Bland-Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (Abbott -31.3 to 31.5 mg/dL, Dexcom -30.8 to 30.4 mg/dL) but no significant bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott 0.1 mg/dL, Dexcom -0.2 mg/dL). Individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott (SD<sub>duplicate</sub> = 10.7 mg/dL , SD<sub>week 1</sub> =12.4 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 2</sub> =11.6 mg/dL, <i>p</i>=0.38) and Dexcom (SD<sub>duplicate</sub> = 11.1 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 1</sub> = 11.5 mg/dL, SD<sub>week 2</sub> =11.9 mg/dL, <i>p</i>=0.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were unreliable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice based on CGM measurements in adults without diabetes requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10371100/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.14.23291406\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.14.23291406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:连续血糖监测仪(CGM)被用于表征餐后血糖反应,从而提供个性化的饮食建议,以最大限度地减少血糖波动。然而,这种建议的有效性取决于CGM的可靠反应。目的:探讨住院患者对重复膳食CGM反应的受试者内变异性。方法:在两项对照喂养研究(NCT03407053和NCT03878108)中收集30名无糖尿病参与者的CGM数据,在两次~1周内,除三种饮食模式外,共捕获948份膳食反应。一项研究使用了两种不同的CGM(Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro和Dexcom G4 Platinum),而另一项研究仅使用Dexcom。我们计算了每个餐后2小时的曲线下增量面积(iAUC),并使用线性相关性、类内相关系数(ICC)、Bland-Altman分析、,并使用标准差(SD)比较了重复膳食与不同膳食的血糖反应的个体变异性(SD重复=11.8 mg/dL,SD第1周=12.2 mg/dL;SD第2周=12.4 mg/dL。p=0.80)。结论:在没有糖尿病的成年人中,个体餐后CGM对重复膳食的反应是不可靠的。基于无糖尿病成年人CGM测量的个性化饮食建议需要更可靠的方法,包括汇总重复测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across four dietary patterns in adults without diabetes.

Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across four dietary patterns in adults without diabetes.

Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across four dietary patterns in adults without diabetes.

Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across four dietary patterns in adults without diabetes.

Background: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are being used to characterize postprandial glycemic responses and thereby provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glycemic excursions. However, the efficacy of such advice depends on reliable CGM responses.

Objective: To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate meals in an inpatient setting.

Methods: CGM data were collected in two controlled feeding studies (NCT03407053 and NCT03878108) in 30 participants without diabetes capturing 1056 meal responses in duplicate ~1 week apart from four dietary patterns. One study used two different CGMs (Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum) whereas the other study used only Dexcom. We calculated the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for each 2-h post-meal period and compared within-subject iAUCs using the same CGM for the duplicate meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analyses, and compared individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals versus different meals using standard deviations (SDs).

Results: There were weak to moderate positive linear correlations between within- subject iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott r=0.47, p<0.0001, Dexcom r=0.43, p<0.0001), with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.31, Dexcom 0.14). Bland-Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (Abbott -31.3 to 31.5 mg/dL, Dexcom -30.8 to 30.4 mg/dL) but no significant bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott 0.1 mg/dL, Dexcom -0.2 mg/dL). Individual variability of glycemic responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott (SDduplicate = 10.7 mg/dL , SDweek 1 =12.4 mg/dL, SDweek 2 =11.6 mg/dL, p=0.38) and Dexcom (SDduplicate = 11.1 mg/dL, SDweek 1 = 11.5 mg/dL, SDweek 2 =11.9 mg/dL, p=0.60).

Conclusions: Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were unreliable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice based on CGM measurements in adults without diabetes requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信