Published in

Wiley, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 8(25), p. 2191-2202, 2023

DOI: 10.1111/dom.15096

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with post‐bariatric hypoglycaemia reduces hypoglycaemia and glycaemic variability

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractAimTo determine whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can reduce hypoglycaemia in patients with post‐bariatric hypoglycaemia (PBH).Materials and MethodsIn an open‐label, nonrandomized, pre‐post design with sequential assignment, CGM data were collected in 22 individuals with PBH in two sequential phases: (i) masked (no access to sensor glucose or alarms); and (ii) unmasked (access to sensor glucose and alarms for low or rapidly declining sensor glucose). Twelve participants wore the Dexcom G4 device for a total of 28 days, while 10 wore the Dexcom G6 device for a total of 20 days.ResultsParticipants with PBH spent a lower percentage of time in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours with unmasked versus masked CGM (<3.3 mM/L, or <60 mg/dL: median [median absolute deviation {MAD}] 0.7 [0.8]% vs. 1.4 [1.7]%, P = 0.03; <3.9 mM/L, or <70 mg/dL: median [MAD] 2.9 [2.5]% vs. 4.7 [4.8]%; P = 0.04), with similar trends overnight. Sensor glucose data from the unmasked phase showed a greater percentage of time spent between 3.9 and 10 mM/L (70‐180 mg/dL) (median [MAD] 94.8 [3.9]% vs. 90.8 [5.2]%; P = 0.004) and lower glycaemic variability over 24 hours (median [MAD] mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion 4.1 [0.98] vs. 4.4 [0.99] mM/L; P = 0.04). During the day, participants also spent a greater percentage of time in normoglycaemia with unmasked CGM (median [MAD] 94.2 [4.8]% vs. 90.9 [6.2]%; P = 0.005), largely due to a reduction in hyperglycaemia (>10 mM/L, or 180 mg/dL: median [MAD] 1.9 [2.2]% vs. 3.9 [3.6]%; P = 0.02).ConclusionsReal‐time CGM data and alarms are associated with reductions in low sensor glucose, elevated sensor glucose, and glycaemic variability. This suggests CGM allows patients to detect hyperglycaemic peaks and imminent hypoglycaemia, allowing dietary modification and self‐treatment to reduce hypoglycaemia. The use of CGM devices may improve safety in PBH, particularly for patients with hypoglycaemia unawareness.