PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Hengist, Aaron
AU  - Guo, Juen
AU  - Hall, Kevin D
TI  - Imprecision nutrition? Duplicate meals result in unreliable individual glycemic responses measured by continuous glucose monitors across three dietary patterns in adults without diabetes
AID  - 10.1101/2023.06.14.23291406
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.06.14.23291406
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/15/2023.06.14.23291406.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/15/2023.06.14.23291406.full
AB  - 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 948 meal responses in duplicate ∼1 week apart from three 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=0.40, p<0.0001), with low within-participant reliability indicated by ICC (Abbott 0.31, Dexcom 0.16). Bland-Altman analyses indicated wide limits of agreement (Abbott -31.4 to 31.5 mg/dL, Dexcom -32.3 to 31.6 mg/dL) but no significant bias of mean iAUCs for duplicate meals (Abbott 0.1 mg/dL, Dexcom -0.3 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 = 11.8 mg/dL, SDweek 1 =12.2 mg/dL, SDweek 2 =12.4 mg/dL, p=0.80).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.This secondary analysis contains data from two trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov(NCT03407053 and NCT03878108).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases under award number 1ZIADK013037Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is an exploratory analysis of data from two clinical research protocols approved by the institutional review board of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and are registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03407053 and NCT03878108)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesDeidentified individual data from consenting subjects will be made freely available upon final publication.CGMcontinuous glucose monitorICCintra-class correlation coefficient