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

Continuous glucose monitoring blood glucose self-monitoring body composition diabetes mellitus time in range

Journal

Digital health
ISSN: 2055-2076
Titre abrégé: Digit Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101690863

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
received: 08 02 2020
accepted: 07 10 2020
entrez: 23 11 2020
pubmed: 24 11 2020
medline: 24 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures interstitial glucose levels through a sensor with a thin filament inserted under the skin. It is customary for patients to rotate sensor application sites between arms to minimize skin irritation. However, there is limited data regarding the degree of inter-arm differences with CGM technology. Self-proclaimed right-handed (n = 5) and left-handed (n = 5) participants, regardless of concurrent comorbidities, were enrolled for CGM. Participants wore a FreeStyle Libre Pro sensor on each arm for a maximum of 14 days. Muscle mass and body fat analysis was conducted using a multi-frequency segmental body composition analyzer. Glucose levels from both arms were time-matched with the first 12 hours eliminated from analysis. Mean glucose and time in target range were compared between readings from the right and left arm. A total of 9830 paired glucose levels were included for analysis. In all participants (n = 10), mean glucose on the right arm was 89.1 mg/dL (SD, 19.9) and 85.3 mg/dL (SD, 19.3) on the left arm (P < 0.001). Glucose was out of target range (70-180 mg/dL) for 12.7% of the time in the right arm compared to 18.5% in the left arm (P < 0.001). In a group of 10 nondiabetic and diabetic adults, there was a statistically significant difference in CGM readings between the right and left arms. Time in target range may differ based on arm selection when using a CGM. Arm dominance did not explain the inter-arm glucose level discordance.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures interstitial glucose levels through a sensor with a thin filament inserted under the skin. It is customary for patients to rotate sensor application sites between arms to minimize skin irritation. However, there is limited data regarding the degree of inter-arm differences with CGM technology.
METHODS METHODS
Self-proclaimed right-handed (n = 5) and left-handed (n = 5) participants, regardless of concurrent comorbidities, were enrolled for CGM. Participants wore a FreeStyle Libre Pro sensor on each arm for a maximum of 14 days. Muscle mass and body fat analysis was conducted using a multi-frequency segmental body composition analyzer. Glucose levels from both arms were time-matched with the first 12 hours eliminated from analysis. Mean glucose and time in target range were compared between readings from the right and left arm.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 9830 paired glucose levels were included for analysis. In all participants (n = 10), mean glucose on the right arm was 89.1 mg/dL (SD, 19.9) and 85.3 mg/dL (SD, 19.3) on the left arm (P < 0.001). Glucose was out of target range (70-180 mg/dL) for 12.7% of the time in the right arm compared to 18.5% in the left arm (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In a group of 10 nondiabetic and diabetic adults, there was a statistically significant difference in CGM readings between the right and left arms. Time in target range may differ based on arm selection when using a CGM. Arm dominance did not explain the inter-arm glucose level discordance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33224517
doi: 10.1177/2055207620970342
pii: 10.1177_2055207620970342
pmc: PMC7658504
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2055207620970342

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Jeremy Lim is also an employee of Genentech, a member of the Roche group, and owns Roche stock.

Références

Diabetes. 2003 Oct;52(10):2490-6
pubmed: 14514631
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Aug;87(8):3902-10
pubmed: 12161530
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1985 Aug;67(4):317-22
pubmed: 4061587
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 Sep 01;3(5):1146-54
pubmed: 20144429
Clin Diabetes. 2018 Apr;36(2):203-204
pubmed: 29686463
Diabetes Care. 2002 Jul;25(7):1185-91
pubmed: 12087017
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Jun;19(S3):S60-S66
pubmed: 28585871
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019 Jul;13(4):794-795
pubmed: 31113248
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Aug;285(2):E241-51
pubmed: 12684220
Diabetologia. 2005 Sep;48(9):1833-40
pubmed: 16001232
Diabetes Care. 2019 Aug;42(8):1593-1603
pubmed: 31177185
J Med Econ. 2018 Mar;21(3):225-230
pubmed: 28994334

Auteurs

Nicole Kim (N)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.

Kevin Pham (K)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.

Allen Shek (A)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.

Jeremy Lim (J)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.
Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, USA.

Xiaohan Liu (X)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.

Sachin A Shah (SA)

Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of the Pacific, Stockton, USA.

Classifications MeSH