Glycaemic index of selected foodstuffs in healthy persons.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine glycaemic index (GI) of 10 popular foodstuffs/mixed meals in healthy persons. METHODS: Ten tested foodstuffs and glucose standard were consumed in three replicates in the course of a defined 9-day meal plan: puffed rice squares with chocolate, dark chocolate, white bread, honey and glucose for breakfast (at 7 a.m.) and dinner (at 8 p.m.); pasta with meat, fried fish with mashed potatoes, and buttered apricot dumplings for lunch (at 12 a.m.); wafers, puffed spelt squares with chocolate, and tomato soup for snack (at 4 p.m.). Each portion contained 50 g of carbohydrates and was consumed within 30 minutes. Glucose concentrations were measured by means of the Continous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS, Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA, USA). The results were processed by Solutions Software (Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA, USA) and DegifXL4 software, Palacký University, Olomouc, CZ. Twenty healthy persons aged 21.9 +/- 1.39 y (mean +/- SE), BMI 23.6 +/- 0.63 kg/m(2) completed the study. RESULTS: GI of tested foodstuffs ranged from 34.7 % (chocolate) to 105.3 % (puffed rice squares with chocolate). There were more than tenfold differences between minimal and maximal values of the GI for some foodstuffs. Significant interindividual differences were found between GIs of foodstuffs. CONCLUSIONS: In twenty healthy persons the glycaemic indexes of ten popular foodstuffs were determined, to be added to the nutritional labels in order to facilitate the optimum meal planning.

Occurence of adverse events due to continuous glucose monitoring.

AIMS: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) using transcutaneous sensors is becoming a sophisticated method to control and regulate glucose metabolism. The transcutaneous sensor of the CGM system (CGMS Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA, USA) is chosen to measure glucose concentration in interstitial fluid up to three days after insertion even though its function remains stable for a longer period. The question arises, which factors really limit the period of sensor insertion without unnecessary risk. The aim of this study was to assess any adverse events occurring in the course of 9 days after the sensor insertion. METHODS: In a group of 22 healthy volunteers aged 21.8+/-1.30 y (mean +/- SE) a total of 26 sensors was inserted subcutaneously in gluteal or lumbar region for 9 days. Before insertion the site was sprayed with an antiseptic (Cutasept F, Bode Chemie, Hamburg, Germany). Local adverse reactions and disturbances in general condition were examined. RESULTS: In the course of 184 sensor-days, there were only minor local adverse events: hypersensitivity, itching, pain, redness, burning, subcutaneous hemorrhage. Additionally, sleep disturbances, attention deficits, problems related to the CGMS monitor, to adhesive tape and/or sensor were found. None of these resulted in sensor withdrawal. In 12 volunteers (55 %) no complications were observed. The sensor function measured according to electrical signals (ISIG) failed (always on day 1-2) in 4 cases (16 %). CONCLUSIONS: The present FDA approved 3-day insertion period for Medtronic transcutaneous sensor does not seem to limit its use and appears to be worth a careful revision.