BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted the importance of managing postprandial hyperglycemia, but adequate monitoring of postprandial glucose remains difficult because of wide variations in levels. We have therefore developed a minimally invasive system to monitor postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC). This system involves no blood sampling and uses interstitial fluid glucose (IG) AUC (IG-AUC) as a surrogate marker of postprandial glucose. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of this system by comparing data with the findings of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in subjects with and without diabetes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The glucose AUC monitoring system was validated by OGTTs in 37 subjects with and 10 subjects without diabetes. A plastic microneedle array was stamped on the forearm to extract IG. A hydrogel patch was then placed on the pretreated area to accumulate IG. Glucose and sodium ion concentrations in the hydrogel were measured to calculate IG-AUC at 2-h postload glucose. Plasma glucose (PG) levels were measured every 30 min to calculate reference PG-AUC. RESULTS: IG-AUC correlated strongly with reference PG-AUC (r=0.93) over a wide range. The level of correlation between IG-AUC and maximum PG level was also high (r=0.86). The painless nature of the technique was confirmed by the response of patients to questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The glucose AUC monitoring system using IG provided good estimates of reference PG-AUC and maximum PG level during OGTTs in subjects with and without diabetes. This system provides easy-to-use monitoring of glucose AUC, which is a good indicator of postprandial glucose.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted the importance of managing postprandial hyperglycemia, but adequate monitoring of postprandial glucose remains difficult because of wide variations in levels. We have therefore developed a minimally invasive system to monitor postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC). This system involves no blood sampling and uses interstitial fluid glucose (IG) AUC (IG-AUC) as a surrogate marker of postprandial glucose. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of this system by comparing data with the findings of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in subjects with and without diabetes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The glucose AUC monitoring system was validated by OGTTs in 37 subjects with and 10 subjects without diabetes. A plastic microneedle array was stamped on the forearm to extract IG. A hydrogel patch was then placed on the pretreated area to accumulate IG. Glucose and sodium ion concentrations in the hydrogel were measured to calculate IG-AUC at 2-h postload glucose. Plasma glucose (PG) levels were measured every 30 min to calculate reference PG-AUC. RESULTS: IG-AUC correlated strongly with reference PG-AUC (r=0.93) over a wide range. The level of correlation between IG-AUC and maximum PG level was also high (r=0.86). The painless nature of the technique was confirmed by the response of patients to questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The glucose AUC monitoring system using IG provided good estimates of reference PG-AUC and maximum PG level during OGTTs in subjects with and without diabetes. This system provides easy-to-use monitoring of glucose AUC, which is a good indicator of postprandial glucose.
Authors: Andrey V Romanyuk; Vasiliy N Zvezdin; Pradnya Samant; Mark I Grenader; Marina Zemlyanova; Mark R Prausnitz Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Ester Caffarel-Salvador; Aaron J Brady; Eyman Eltayib; Teng Meng; Ana Alonso-Vicente; Patricia Gonzalez-Vazquez; Barbara M Torrisi; Eva Maria Vicente-Perez; Karen Mooney; David S Jones; Steven E J Bell; Colin P McCoy; Helen O McCarthy; James C McElnay; Ryan F Donnelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marjan Alssema; Hanny M Boers; Antonio Ceriello; Eric S Kilpatrick; David J Mela; Marion G Priebe; Patrick Schrauwen; Bruce H Wolffenbuttel; Andreas F H Pfeiffer Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.718