Literature DB >> 26269199

Effect of acetaminophen on CGM glucose in an outpatient setting.

David M Maahs1, Daniel DeSalvo2, Laura Pyle3, Trang Ly2, Laurel Messer3, Paula Clinton2, Emily Westfall3, R Paul Wadwa3, Bruce Buckingham2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26269199      PMCID: PMC4876736          DOI: 10.2337/dc15-1096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


× No keyword cloud information.
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) interferes with continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensing, resulting in falsely elevated CGM glucose values in both sensors currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In amperometric glucose biosensors, particularly those measuring hydrogen peroxide, acetaminophen’s phenolic moiety is oxidized at the sensing electrode, producing an electrochemical signal not related to glucose (1). Limited published data exist documenting the magnitude of the effect of acetaminophen on CGM glucose (2), especially in the outpatient setting with contemporary sensor technology. Currently, the FDA recommends that insulin dosing decisions are based on blood glucose (BG) meter values, not CGM glucose values. Given the common use of acetaminophen, its interference with CGM sensing has significant clinical implications for patients who use CGM. To better understand this effect, we performed an acetaminophen challenge as part of an outpatient study designed to investigate the potential challenges to closed-loop systems, which use CGM sensor glucose values to automate insulin delivery. We hypothesized that acetaminophen would cause elevation of CGM glucose values in relationship to BG meter values. Institutional review board approval at both sites and informed consent or assent plus guardian consent for subjects aged <18 years were obtained for all participants. Data from 40 subjects (43% male, age 28.5 ± 8.4 years, HbA1c 7.3 ± 0.8%) were included in this analysis. At breakfast, participants using a Dexcom G4 CGM system ingested 1,000 mg of acetaminophen and obtained BG meter (Bayer CONTOUR NEXT) readings at baseline, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h after acetaminophen ingestion. If the CGM was calibrated during the 8 h following acetaminophen ingestion, then the postcalibration data were excluded. The BG meter value closest to but no more than 15 min from the target time was selected (with the exception of the 0 min time point, which was allowed to be up to 30 min prior to acetaminophen ingestion). Next, the CGM glucose values were adjusted for baseline bias by calculating the difference between the 0 min CGM and BG meter values and then correcting the subsequent CGM values for the baseline bias. Least squares means and 95% CIs from a mixed model of the difference at each time point are shown in Fig. 1. Significant differences existed for 8 h after acetaminophen ingestion (P ≤ 0.01 for all), consistent with expected acetaminophen pharmacokinetics. The greatest mean difference was 61 mg/dL with an upper 95% CI limit of 77 mg/dL at 120 min (BG meter 171 ± 37 mg/dL). Notable individual variation was seen with 50% of relative differences within 20% and an additional 26% within 40% over 8 h. Three subjects had a BG meter value of <70 mg/dL with higher CGM glucose readings (63 vs. 138 mg/dL, 46 vs. 175 mg/dL, and 51 vs. 184 mg/dL, respectively), whereas 10 subjects had a CGM glucose >180 mg/dL and a BG meter value more than 100 mg/dL lower. Age, BMI, HbA1c, and number of boluses for food ingestion did not affect the observed difference, but a greater effect was seen in women (P = 0.04).
Figure 1

Least squares means and 95% CIs for difference between CGM glucose and BG meter glucose by time point.

Least squares means and 95% CIs for difference between CGM glucose and BG meter glucose by time point. Acetaminophen falsely elevates CGM glucose values compared with BG meter values. These data have implications for use of CGM glucose as a replacement for meter glucose for diabetes decision making and for closed-loop systems using CGM glucose values for automated insulin delivery.
  2 in total

1.  Elimination of the acetaminophen interference in an implantable glucose sensor.

Authors:  Y Zhang; Y Hu; G S Wilson; D Moatti-Sirat; V Poitout; G Reach
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  1994-04-01       Impact factor: 6.986

2.  Reduction of acetaminophen interference in glucose sensors by a composite Nafion membrane: demonstration in rats and man.

Authors:  D Moatti-Sirat; V Poitout; V Thomé; M N Gangnerau; Y Zhang; Y Hu; G S Wilson; F Lemonnier; J C Klein; G Reach
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 10.122

  2 in total
  41 in total

Review 1.  Benefits and Challenges of Diabetes Technology Use in Older Adults.

Authors:  Elena Toschi; Medha N Munshi
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 4.741

2.  Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients After Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation.

Authors:  Gregory P Forlenza; Brandon M Nathan; Antoinette Moran; Ty B Dunn; Gregory J Beilman; Timothy L Pruett; Boris P Kovatchev; Melena D Bellin
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Replacement of Blood Glucose Measurements by Measurements With Systems for Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (rtCGM) or CGM With Intermittent Scanning (iscCGM): A German View.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Sandra Schlüter; Lutz Heinemann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-07

4.  Continuous Glucose Monitor Interference With Commonly Prescribed Medications: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Ananda Basu; Michael Q Slama; Wayne T Nicholson; Loralie Langman; Thomas Peyser; Rickey Carter; Rita Basu
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-03-23

5.  Home use of a bihormonal bionic pancreas versus insulin pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  Firas H El-Khatib; Courtney Balliro; Mallory A Hillard; Kendra L Magyar; Laya Ekhlaspour; Manasi Sinha; Debbie Mondesir; Aryan Esmaeili; Celia Hartigan; Michael J Thompson; Samir Malkani; J Paul Lock; David M Harlan; Paula Clinton; Eliana Frank; Darrell M Wilson; Daniel DeSalvo; Lisa Norlander; Trang Ly; Bruce A Buckingham; Jamie Diner; Milana Dezube; Laura A Young; April Goley; M Sue Kirkman; John B Buse; Hui Zheng; Rajendranath R Selagamsetty; Edward R Damiano; Steven J Russell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Clinical Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pediatrics.

Authors:  Rayhan A Lal; David M Maahs
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 7.  Update on Clinical Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Nalani Haviland; John Walsh; Ruth Roberts; Timothy S Bailey
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.810

8.  Effect of Repeated Doses of Acetaminophen on a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System with Permselective Membrane.

Authors:  Douglas Denham
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-08-29

9.  Analysis of a Unique Postmarket Surveillance Dataset That a Glucose Test-Strip Demonstrates no Evidence of Interference and Robust Clinical Accuracy Irrespective of the Prescription Medication Status of a Large Cohort of Patients With Diabetes.

Authors:  Mike Grady; Hilary Cameron; Stuart Phillips; Gillian Smith; Steven Setford
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-09-03

10.  Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  David L Levitt; Elias K Spanakis; Kathleen A Ryan; Kristi D Silver
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 6.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.