Differences in venous, capillary and interstitial glucose concentrations in individuals without diabetes after glucose load
Author:
Pleus Stefan1ORCID, Schauer Sebastian1, Baumstark Annette1ORCID, Beil Alexandra1, Jendrike Nina1, Link Manuela1, Zschornack Eva1, Beltzer Anne1, Haug Cornelia1, Freckmann Guido1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Institut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm , Ulm , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Differences between capillary and venous glucose concentrations have been reported in the past. In continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system performance studies, comparator measurements are often performed in venous samples, despite CGM systems typically aiming at providing capillary-like values. In this study, differences between venous, capillary and interstitial glucose concentrations, measured with a laboratory analyzer, a self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) system and an intermittent-scanning CGM system were investigated in subjects without diabetes after glucose load.
Methods
During the study, an oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) was performed with 41 participants who had no known history of diabetes (mean age 25.5 ± 9.7 years). Venous blood samples for measurement with a laboratory analyzer were collected before drinking the standardized 75 g glucose solution and after 60 and 120 min. In parallel, capillary blood was obtained for measurement with a laboratory analyzer and an SMBG system, and interstitial glucose values were measured with an intermittent-scanning CGM system.
Results
Glucose concentrations in the fasting state were slightly different for the three different compartments whereas considerable differences (some median differences exceeding 30 %) in glucose concentration were observed 60 and 120 min after the start of the oGTT.
Conclusions
Marked differences with a high inter-individual variability between venous, capillary, and interstitial fluid glucose concentrations were found especially after glucose load. These differences can affect perceived CGM accuracy in performance studies depending on the specific comparator method used, and they are potentially relevant in clinical practice, like diabetes diagnosis.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
Reference30 articles.
1. Beck, RW, Riddlesworth, T, Ruedy, K, Ahmann, A, Bergenstal, R, Haller, S, et al.. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:371–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19975. 2. Bolinder, J, Antuna, R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn, P, Kroger, J, Weitgasser, R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:2254–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31535-5. 3. Heinemann, L, Freckmann, G, Ehrmann, D, Faber-Heinemann, G, Guerra, S, Waldenmaier, D, et al.. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:1367–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30297-6. 4. Isitt, JJ, Roze, S, Sharland, H, Cogswell, G, Alshannaq, H, Norman, GJ, et al.. Cost-effectiveness of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy in the UK. Diabetes Ther 2022;13:1875–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-022-01324-x. 5. Han, J, Heinemann, L, Ginsberg, BH, Alva, S, Appel, M, Bess, S, et al.. The YSI 2300 analyzer replacement meeting report. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020;14:679–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820911471.
|
|