| Literature DB >> 28868824 |
Mei Uemura1, Yutaka Yano2, Toshinari Suzuki3, Taro Yasuma4, Toshiyuki Sato5, Aya Morimoto5, Samiko Hosoya5, Chihiro Suminaka5, Hiromu Nakajima6, Esteban C Gabazza4, Yoshiyuki Takei7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is reported to be a useful technique, but difficult or inconvenient for some patients and institutions. We are developing a glucose area under the curve (AUC) monitoring system without blood sampling using a minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology (MIET). Here we evaluated the accuracy of interstitial fluid glucose (IG) AUC measured by MIET in patients with diabetes for an extended time interval and the potency of detecting hyperglycemia using CGM data as a reference.Entities:
Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Diabetes mellitus; Glucose area under the curve; Hyperglycemia; Nocturnal blood glucose; Post-prandial blood glucose
Year: 2017 PMID: 28868824 PMCID: PMC5583404 DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2017.41.4.265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab J ISSN: 2233-6079 Impact factor: 5.376
Clinical characteristic of diabetic patients
| Characteristic | Patients examined at daytime | Patients examined at nighttime | All patients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 7 | 26 | 33 |
| Sex, male/female | 5/2 | 11/15 | 16/17 |
| Age, yr | 65.9±13.0 | 58.5±15.8 | 60.0±15.4 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 26.0±2.4 | 24.7±5.4 | 24.9±4.9 |
| Duration, yr | 12.4±10.7 | 12.3±10.7 | 12.3±10.6 |
| Fasting blood glucose, mg/dL | 165.4±61.9 | 159.4±69.2 | 160.7±66.8 |
| HbA1c, % | 10.1±2.3 | 9.7±2.6 | 9.8±2.5 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 66.0±20.4 | 73.4±29.7 | 71.9±27.9 |
| C-peptide, ng/mL | 2.1±1.2 | 2.3±2.3 | 2.3±2.1 |
| No. of cases of <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 of eGFR | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| No. of cases of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 of eGFR | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Type of diabetes | |||
| Type 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Type 2 | 7 | 22 | 29 |
| Others | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Medications | |||
| DPP-4 inhibitor | 2 | 11 | 13 |
| Sulfonylureas | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| α-Glucosidase inhibitors | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Glinides | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Biguanide | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Thiazolidine | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| GLP-1 receptor agonist | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Insulin | 6 | 18 | 24 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; DPP-4, dipeptidyl peptidase-4; GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide-1.
Fig. 1The process of minimally invasive interstitial fluid (ISF) extraction technology from pretreatment with a microneedle array to ISF glucose accumulation. Accumulated glucose corresponds to glucose area under the curve (AUC) during 8 hours.
Fig. 2Correlation between glucose area under the curve (AUC) measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and interstitial fluid glucose AUC measured by minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology (MIET) examined at (A) daytime (y=x, r=0.76) and (B) nighttime (y=x, r=0.82).
Fig. 3The area under the receiver operating characteristics curves showed a positive discrimination threshold for interstitial fluid glucose of minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology (MIET) area under the curve (AUC) of glucose level over 200 mg/dL by continuous glucose monitoring in all patients. The optimal cutoff value of MIET AUC to predict over 200 mg/dL of blood glucose level was 1,067.3 mg·hr/dL (sensitivity of 88.2% and specificity of 81.5%).
CGM parameters and MIET-derived AUC in diabetic patients
| Parameter | Patients examined at daytime | Patients examined at nighttime | All patients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 7 | 26 | 33 |
| Parameters with CGM data | |||
| Mean glucose level, mg/dL | 181.7±20.7 | 139.4±37.2 | 148.4±38.3 |
| SD, mg/dL | 44.3 (22.5–54.9) | 18.3 (12.7–38.9) | 22.5 (13.4–43.9) |
| CV, % | 24.7 (13.6–28.5) | 13.4 (8.5–27.7) | 13.8 (10.0–28.0) |
| Highest blood glucose level, mg/dL | 261.3±28.4 | 190.7±48.9 | 205.6±53.7 |
| Lowest blood glucose level, mg/dL | 115.1±26.4 | 99.8±35.5 | 103.0±34.0 |
| MAGE, mg/dL | 71.0 (49.5–91.0) | 40.2 (23.6–70.8) | 48.0 (30.0–83.5) |
| M value | 22.2 (15.2–30.7) | 5.7 (1.3–13.2) | 8.1 (1.6–18.9) |
| J-index | 49.7±12.4 | 28.6±14.2 | 33.1±16.2 |
| Glucose AUC of CGM, mg·hr/dL | 1,469.0±170.4 | 1,118.0±301.6 | 1,192.4±312.6 |
| Glucose AUC of MIET, mg·hr/dL | 1,644.9±306.0 | 1,113.5±338.2 | 1,226.3±394.4 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or median (interquartile range).
CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; MIET, minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology; AUC, area under the curve; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation; MAGE, mean amplitude of glucose excursion.
Linear regression analysis between MIET-derived AUC and CGM parameters in all diabetic patients
| Variable | ||
|---|---|---|
| Mean glucose level, mg/dL | 0.865 | <0.0001 |
| Log-SD | 0.350 | 0.046 |
| Log-CV | 0.014 | 0.936 |
| Highest glucose level, mg/dL | 0.768 | <0.0001 |
| Lowest glucose level, mg/dL | 0.603 | <0.0001 |
| Log-MAGE | 0.409 | 0.018 |
| Log-M value | 0.844 | <0.0001 |
| J-index | 0.848 | <0.0001 |
MIET, minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology; AUC, area under the curve; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation; MAGE, mean amplitude of glucose excursion.
Fig. 4No correlation between serum Na+ level and ratio of interstitial fluid glucose area under the curve (AUC) measured by minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology (MIET) to glucose AUC measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in all patients.
Fig. 5Response of the patients to a questionnaire about minimally invasive interstitial fluid extraction technology in all patients. (A) Pain at stamping. (B) Impression at stamped area.