Differences in glucose level between right arm and left arm using continuous glucose monitors

A self-powered and supercapacitive microneedle continuous glucose monitoring system with a wide range of glucose detection capabilities

Continuous detection of sudden changes in blood glucose is essential for individuals with diabetes who have difficulty in maintaining optimal control of their blood glucose levels. Hypoglycemic shock or a hyperglycemic crisis are likely to occurs in patients with diabetes and poses a significant threat to their lives. Currently, commercial continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has limits in the glucose concentration detection range, which is 40-500 mg/dL, making it difficult to prevent the risk of hyperglycemic shock. In addition, current CGMs are invasive, cause pain and irritation during usage, and expensive. In this research, we overcome these limitations by introducing a novel mechanism to detect glucose concentration using supercapacitors. The developed CGM, which is self-powered and minimally invasive due to the use of microneedles, can detect a wider range of glucose concentrations than commercial sensors. In addition, efficacy and stability were proven through in vitro and in vivo experiments. Thus, this self-powered, microneedle and supercapacitive-type CGM can potentially prevent both hypoglycemic and complications of hyperglycemia without pain and with less power consumption than current commercial sensors.

The effect of preprandial versus postprandial physical activity on glycaemia: Meta-analysis of human intervention studies

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effect of preprandial physical activity (PA) versus postprandial PA on glycaemia in human intervention studies. Medline and Embase.com were searched until February 2023 for intervention studies in adults, directly comparing preprandial PA versus postprandial PA on glycaemia. Studies were screened using ASReview (34,837) and full texts were read by two independent reviewers (42 full text, 28 included). Results were analysed using pooled mean differences in random-effects models. Studies were either acute response studies (n = 21) or Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) over multiple weeks (n = 7). In acute response studies, postprandial outcomes followed the expected physiological patterns, and outcomes measured over 24 h showed no significant differences. For the RCTs, glucose area under the curve during a glucose tolerance test was slightly, but not significantly lower in preprandial PA vs postprandial PA (-0.29 [95 %CI:-0.66, 0.08] mmol/L, I2 = 64.36 %). Subgroup analyses (quality, health status, etc.) did not significantly change the outcomes. In conclusion, we found no differences between preprandial PA versus postprandial PA on glycaemia both after one PA bout as well as after multiple weeks of PA. The studies were of low to moderate quality of evidence as assessed by GRADE, showed contradictive results, included no long-term studies and used various designs and populations. We therefore need better RCTs, with more similar designs, in larger populations and longer follow-up periods (≥12 weeks) to have a final answer on the questions eat first, then exercise, or the reverse?

Differences in Glucose Readings Between Right Arm and Left Arm Using a Continuous Glucose Monitor

OBJECTIVE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are used for evaluating real-time glucose levels to optimize diabetes management. There is limited information, however, on whether readings differ when a device is placed on the right versus the left arm. This study evaluated the mean difference in glucose levels between the right and left arm and the effect of unilateral arm exercise on this difference. The effect of an intermittent fasting diet on body fat percentage was also evaluated.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective trial, 46 adult volunteers self-selected into the intermittent fasting (IF; N = 23) or free-living (FL; N = 23) diet group and were randomized into a unilateral arm exercise group. Volunteers had CGM sensors placed simultaneously on both arms for 12-14 days.

RESULTS

The mean glucose level in the right arm was significantly higher than the left arm by 3.7 mg/dL (P < .001), and this result was unaffected by diet or arm exercise. Glucose levels were in euglycemic range for 75.2% of the time in the right arm and 67.5% in the left arm (P < .001). The change from baseline in body fat percentage between the IF and FL diet groups was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Measured glucose level and time in euglycemic range differ per placement of the CGM device, and the implications of this difference should be considered in clinical practice and research.

Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring systems have been widely used but discrepancies among various brands of devices are rarely discussed. This study aimed to explore differences in glycemic metrics between FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and iPro2 among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

Participants with T1DM and glycosylated hemoglobin of 7%-10% were included and wore FSL and iPro2 for 2 weeks simultaneously. Datasets collected on the insertion and detachment day, and those with insufficient quantity (<90%) were excluded. Agreements of measurement accuracy and glycemic metrics were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 40 498 paired data were included. Compared with the values from FSL, significantly higher median value was observed in iPro2 (147.6 [106.2, 192.6] vs. 144.0 [100.8, 192.6] mg/dl, p < 0.001) and the largest discordance was observed in hypoglycemic range (median absolute relative difference with iPro2 as reference value: 25.8% [10.8%, 42.1%]). Furthermore, significant differences in glycemic metrics between iPro2 and FSL were also observed in time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dl (TIR, 62.8 ± 12.4% vs. 58.8 ± 12.3%, p = 0.004), time spent below 70 mg/dl (4.4 [1.8, 10.9]% vs. 7.2 [5.4, 13.3]%, p < 0.001), time spent below 54 mg/dl (0.9 [0.3, 4.0]% vs. 2.6 [1.3, 5.6]%, p = 0.011), and coefficient of variation (CV, 38.7 ± 8.5% vs. 40.9 ± 9.3%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

During 14 days of use, FSL and iPro2 provided different estimations on TIR, CV, and hypoglycemia-related parameters, which needs to be considered when making clinical decisions and clinical trial designs.