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。

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.007
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,&nbsp;Jude Anthony Ong,&nbsp;Katherine McNeel,&nbsp;Juen Guo,&nbsp;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 &lt;</em> 0.0001 and Dexcom <em>r =</em> 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, <em>P &lt;</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,&nbsp;Jude Anthony Ong,&nbsp;Katherine McNeel,&nbsp;Juen Guo,&nbsp;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 &lt;</em> 0.0001 and Dexcom <em>r =</em> 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, <em>P &lt;</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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:连续血糖监测仪(cgm)用于描述餐后血糖反应,并提供个性化的饮食建议,以尽量减少血糖漂移。这种建议的有效性取决于可靠的葡萄糖反应。目的:探讨住院患者对重复提供的膳食的CGM反应在受试者内部的可变性。方法:从30名非糖尿病患者的两项住院喂养研究中收集了CGM数据,捕获了1189人对四种饮食模式中重复饮食1周的反应。一项研究使用两种不同的cgm(雅培Freestyle Libre Pro和Dexcom G4 Platinum),而另一项研究仅使用Dexcom。我们计算了餐后每2小时葡萄糖的增量曲线下面积(iAUC),并使用线性相关性、类内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altman分析比较了受试者内、cgm内对重复膳食的反应。使用标准偏差(SDs)比较了不同膳食对重复膳食间质葡萄糖反应的个体差异。结果:受试者内重复饮食的iauc之间存在弱至中度的正线性相关[Abbott r = 0.46, 95%可信区间(CI): 0.38, 0.54, P < 0.0001; Dexcom r = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.50, P < 0.0001], ICC显示出较低的受试者内信度(Abbott 0.28, Dexcom 0.17)。Bland-Altman分析表明,一致性限宽(LoA)(雅培-29.8至28.4 mg/dL和Dexcom -29.4至32.1 mg/dL),但重复餐的平均iauc偏差较小(雅培-0.7 mg/dL和Dexcom 1.3 mg/dL)。对于雅培[SDweek1 11.7 mg/dL(与重复餐相比P = 0.01), SDweek2 10.6 mg/dL (P = 0.43), SDduplicate 10.1 mg/dL]和Dexcom [SDweek1 10.9 mg/dL (P = 0.62), SDweek2 11.0 mg/dL (P = 0.73), SDduplicate 11.2 mg/dL],重复餐对间质葡萄糖反应的个体差异与每个饮食周评估的不同膳食相似。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高度可变的。基于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。该试验在clinicaltrials.gov注册为NCT03407053和NCT03878108。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
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
CiteScore
12.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
332
审稿时长
38 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Diet and survival after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Folic acid supplementation in children with sickle cell disease: A randomized double-blind non-inferiority crossover trial. Impact of Formula Protein Quantity and Source on Infant Metabolism: Serum, Urine and Fecal Metabolomes of a Randomized Controlled Study. Adipose tissue content of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and all-cause mortality: a Danish prospective cohort study. Editorial board/publication information
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1