Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall
{"title":"不精确的营养?非糖尿病成年人对重复提供的食物的葡萄糖反应的个体差异性。","authors":"Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall","doi":"10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are used to characterize postprandial glucose responses and provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glucose excursions. The efficacy of such advice depends on reliable glucose responses.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate presented meals in an inpatient setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>CGM data were collected from two inpatient feeding studies in 30 participants without diabetes, capturing 1189 responses to duplicate meals presented ∼1 wk 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 glucose for each 2-h postmeal period and compared within-subject, within-CGM responses to duplicate presented meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland–Altman analyses. Individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals were also compared with different meals using standard deviations (SDs).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were weak-to-moderate positive linear correlations between within-subject iAUCs for duplicate meals [Abbott <em>r</em> = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38, 0.54, <em>P <</em> 0.0001 and Dexcom <em>r =</em> 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, <em>P <</em> 0.0001], with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.28, Dexcom 0.17). Bland–Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (LoA) (Abbott −29.8 to 28.4 mg/dL and Dexcom −29.4 to 32.1 mg/dL) but small bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott −0.7 mg/dL and Dexcom 1.3 mg/dL). The individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott [SD<sub>week1</sub> 11.7 mg/dL (compared with duplicate <em>P =</em> 0.01), SD<sub>week2</sub> 10.6 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.43), and SD<sub>duplicate</sub> 10.1 mg/dL] and Dexcom [SD<sub>week1</sub> 10.9 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.62), SD<sub>week2</sub> 11.0 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.73), and SD<sub>duplicate</sub> 11.2 mg/dL].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were highly variable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice on the basis of CGM measurements requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.</div><div>This trial was registered at <span><span>clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> as NCT03407053 and NCT03878108.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50813,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Nutrition","volume":"121 1","pages":"Pages 74-82"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imprecision nutrition? Intraindividual variability of glucose responses to duplicate presented meals in adults without diabetes\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Hengist, Jude Anthony Ong, Katherine McNeel, Juen Guo, Kevin D Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are used to characterize postprandial glucose responses and provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glucose excursions. The efficacy of such advice depends on reliable glucose responses.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate presented meals in an inpatient setting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>CGM data were collected from two inpatient feeding studies in 30 participants without diabetes, capturing 1189 responses to duplicate meals presented ∼1 wk 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 glucose for each 2-h postmeal period and compared within-subject, within-CGM responses to duplicate presented meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland–Altman analyses. Individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals were also compared with different meals using standard deviations (SDs).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were weak-to-moderate positive linear correlations between within-subject iAUCs for duplicate meals [Abbott <em>r</em> = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38, 0.54, <em>P <</em> 0.0001 and Dexcom <em>r =</em> 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, <em>P <</em> 0.0001], with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.28, Dexcom 0.17). Bland–Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (LoA) (Abbott −29.8 to 28.4 mg/dL and Dexcom −29.4 to 32.1 mg/dL) but small bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott −0.7 mg/dL and Dexcom 1.3 mg/dL). The individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott [SD<sub>week1</sub> 11.7 mg/dL (compared with duplicate <em>P =</em> 0.01), SD<sub>week2</sub> 10.6 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.43), and SD<sub>duplicate</sub> 10.1 mg/dL] and Dexcom [SD<sub>week1</sub> 10.9 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.62), SD<sub>week2</sub> 11.0 mg/dL (<em>P =</em> 0.73), and SD<sub>duplicate</sub> 11.2 mg/dL].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were highly variable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice on the basis of CGM measurements requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.</div><div>This trial was registered at <span><span>clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> as NCT03407053 and NCT03878108.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Clinical Nutrition\",\"volume\":\"121 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 74-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Clinical Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916524008141\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916524008141","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Imprecision nutrition? Intraindividual variability of glucose responses to duplicate presented meals in adults without diabetes
Background
Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are used to characterize postprandial glucose responses and provide personalized dietary advice to minimize glucose excursions. The efficacy of such advice depends on reliable glucose responses.
Objectives
To explore within-subject variability of CGM responses to duplicate presented meals in an inpatient setting.
Methods
CGM data were collected from two inpatient feeding studies in 30 participants without diabetes, capturing 1189 responses to duplicate meals presented ∼1 wk 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 glucose for each 2-h postmeal period and compared within-subject, within-CGM responses to duplicate presented meals using linear correlations, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland–Altman analyses. Individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals were also compared with different meals using standard deviations (SDs).
Results
There were weak-to-moderate positive linear correlations between within-subject iAUCs for duplicate meals [Abbott r = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38, 0.54, P < 0.0001 and Dexcom r = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, P < 0.0001], with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.28, Dexcom 0.17). Bland–Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (LoA) (Abbott −29.8 to 28.4 mg/dL and Dexcom −29.4 to 32.1 mg/dL) but small bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott −0.7 mg/dL and Dexcom 1.3 mg/dL). The individual variability of interstitial glucose responses to duplicate meals was similar to that of different meals evaluated each diet week for both Abbott [SDweek1 11.7 mg/dL (compared with duplicate P = 0.01), SDweek2 10.6 mg/dL (P = 0.43), and SDduplicate 10.1 mg/dL] and Dexcom [SDweek1 10.9 mg/dL (P = 0.62), SDweek2 11.0 mg/dL (P = 0.73), and SDduplicate 11.2 mg/dL].
Conclusions
Individual postprandial CGM responses to duplicate meals were highly variable in adults without diabetes. Personalized diet advice on the basis of CGM measurements requires more reliable methods involving aggregated repeated measurements.
This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03407053 and NCT03878108.
期刊介绍:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is recognized as the most highly rated peer-reviewed, primary research journal in nutrition and dietetics.It focuses on publishing the latest research on various topics in nutrition, including but not limited to obesity, vitamins and minerals, nutrition and disease, and energy metabolism.
Purpose:
The purpose of AJCN is to:
Publish original research studies relevant to human and clinical nutrition.
Consider well-controlled clinical studies describing scientific mechanisms, efficacy, and safety of dietary interventions in the context of disease prevention or health benefits.
Encourage public health and epidemiologic studies relevant to human nutrition.
Promote innovative investigations of nutritional questions employing epigenetic, genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic approaches.
Include solicited editorials, book reviews, solicited or unsolicited review articles, invited controversy position papers, and letters to the Editor related to prior AJCN articles.
Peer Review Process:
All submitted material with scientific content undergoes peer review by the Editors or their designees before acceptance for publication.