Correlation Between Capillary and Venous Blood Glucose in the Lactose Tolerance Test

Can isometric testing substitute for the one repetition maximum squat test?

When measuring maximum strength, a high accuracy and precision is required to monitor the training adaptations. Based on available reliability parameters, the literature suggests the replacement of the one repetition maximum (1RM) by isometric testing to save testing time. However, from a statistical point of view, correlation coefficients do not provide the required information when aiming to replace one test by another. Therefore, the literature suggests the inclusion of the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for agreement analysis. Consequently, to check the replaceability of 1RM testing methods, the current study examined the agreement of isometric and dynamic testing methods in the squat and the isometric mid-thigh pull. While in accordance with the literature, correlations were classified high r = 0.638-0.828 and ICC = 0.630-0.828, the agreement analysis provided MAEs of 175.75-444.17 N and MAPEs of 16.16-57.71% indicating an intolerable high measurement error between isometric and dynamic testing conditions in the squat and isometric mid-thigh pull. In contrast to previous studies, using MAE, MAPE supplemented by CCC and BA analysis highlights the poor agreement between the included strength tests. The recommendation to replace 1RM testing with isometric testing routines in the squat does not provide suitable concordance and is not recommended.

Assessing agreement between two methods of measuring blood glucose level without Bland-Altman limits

OBJECTIVE

To describe a new method of assessing agreement between two methods of measuring blood glucose level in view of several problems with the currently used Bland-Altman method.

METHODS

Study the deficiencies in the Bland-Altman method and propose a simple method that overcomes these deficiencies. The simple method does not require the calculation of Bland-Altman limits.

RESULTS

Clinical tolerance limits, which are needed anyway, can be directly used to obtain the agreement by the percentage of differences within these limits. This method is simple, robust, and nonparametric. It is more flexible also as the clinical tolerance limits can be varied for different values of the measurement such as to have close agreement at critical values and relaxed agreement at other values. Non-symmetric limits can also be set up under the simple method.

CONCLUSION

The method of assessing agreement between two methods of measuring blood glucose level can be greatly improved by directly using clinical tolerance limits without calculating the Bland-Altman limits.

Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods-a narrative review

Measuring maximal strength (MSt) is a very common performance diagnoses, especially in elite and competitive sports. The most popular procedure in test batteries is to test the one repetition maximum (1RM). Since testing maximum dynamic strength is very time consuming, it often suggested to use isometric testing conditions instead. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the high Pearson correlation coefficients of r ≥ 0.7 between isometric and dynamic conditions indicate that both tests would provide similar measures of MSt. However, calculating r provides information about the relationship between two parameters, but does not provide any statement about the agreement or concordance of two testing procedures. Hence, to assess replaceability, the concordance correlation coefficient (ρ c) and the Bland-Altman analysis including the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) seem to be more appropriate. Therefore, an exemplary model based on r = 0.55 showed ρ c = 0.53, A MAE of 413.58 N and a MAPE = 23.6% with a range of -1,000-800 N within 95% Confidence interval (95%CI), while r = 0.7 and 0.92 showed ρ c = 0.68 with a MAE = 304.51N/MAPE = 17.4% with a range of -750 N-600 N within a 95% CI and ρ c = 0.9 with a MAE = 139.99/MAPE = 7.1% with a range of -200-450 N within a 95% CI, respectively. This model illustrates the limited validity of correlation coefficients to evaluate the replaceability of two testing procedures. Interpretation and classification of ρ c, MAE and MAPE seem to depend on expected changes of the measured parameter. A MAPE of about 17% between two testing procedures can be assumed to be intolerably high.

Lactose tolerance test as an alternative to hydrogen breath test in the study of lactose malabsorption

Objectives

Lactose malabsorption is generally assessed by hydrogen breath testing (HBT). However, this test is not recommended in patients with high baseline hydrogen concentrations (H₂B). In addition, breath testing is not recommended in the current situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the potential infectiveness of the samples. The objective is to assess concordance between HBT and lactose tolerance test (LTT) depending on H₂B concentrations.

Methods

A total of 430 patients (40 years, Q1-Q3 = 28-54 years; 66.7% women) suspected of lactose malabsorption were included in the study. Breath and heparinized blood samples were collected at baseline and sequentially after the intake of 50 g of lactose, to measure hydrogen in breath and glycemia in blood, respectively.

Results

H₂B was <10 ppm in 69.5% of subjects; 10-20 ppm in 14.7%; and >20 ppm in 15.8% of subjects. In patients with H₂B <20 ppm, concordance between HBT and LTT was moderate and consistently improved when the cut-off in LTT was set at 15 mg/dL. The increase in hydrogen and glucose correlated negatively (r=-0.389; p<0.05). The increase in glycemia during LTT was not influenced by H₂B levels obtained in HBT.

Conclusions

LTT emerges as an alternative to HBT to assess lactose malabsorption in the presence of high H₂B levels or when breath testing is not recommended by the circumstances. The best concordance was obtained when the cut-off for LTT was set at 15 mg/dL.

Lactose after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity, is it a problem?

BACKGROUND

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) can cause multiple food intolerances and gastrointestinal complaints are frequently reported after dairy consumption. We aimed to determine the prevalence of lactose malabsorption and intolerance, and complaints associated with dairy consumption in daily life, before and after RYGB.

METHOD

The lactose breath test (LBT) and lactose tolerance test (LTT) was performed in 84 patients awaiting RYGB surgery and 84 patients after surgery. Gastrointestinal symptoms at baseline and after testing were recorded. Lactose malabsorption was defined as a positive LBT and/or LTT. Lactose intolerance as a positive test combined with an increase of gastrointestinal complains. Dairy consumption in daily life and successive gastrointestinal complaints were registered via a questionnaire. Results of preoperative and postoperative patients were compared.

RESULTS

Lactose malabsorption was present in 15 (17.9%) of the preoperative patients and in 25 (29.8%) of the postoperative patients (OR 2.46; 95%CI: 1.08-5.59; p = .03). Of the preoperative patients 6 (7.1%) patients met the criteria for lactose intolerance, compared to 8 (9.5%) patients in the postoperative group (OR 1.48; 95%CI 0.48-4.57; p = .50). Twelve (14.3%) preoperative patients indicated to have gastrointestinal complaints after dairy consumption in daily life versus 45 (53.6%) postoperative patients (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

This study shows no increase in patients with proven lactose intolerance after RYGB compared to preoperative patients. Gastrointestinal complaints after dairy consumption in daily life were far more frequently reported by RYGB patients. It is unlikely that all reported gastrointestinal complaints are actually caused by lactose. Other ingredients in dairy, like fat, are possibly contributory.

Update on lactose malabsorption and intolerance: pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management

Lactose is the main source of calories in milk, an essential nutriedigestion, patients with visceral hypersensitivity nt in infancy and a key part of the diet in populations that maintain the ability to digest this disaccharide in adulthood. Lactase deficiency (LD) is the failure to express the enzyme that hydrolyses lactose into galactose and glucose in the small intestine. The genetic mechanism of lactase persistence in adult Caucasians is mediated by a single C→T nucleotide polymorphism at the LCTbo -13'910 locus on chromosome-2. Lactose malabsorption (LM) refers to any cause of failure to digest and/or absorb lactose in the small intestine. This includes primary genetic and also secondary LD due to infection or other conditions that affect the mucosal integrity of the small bowel. Lactose intolerance (LI) is defined as the onset of abdominal symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating and diarrhoea after lactose ingestion by an individual with LM. The likelihood of LI depends on the lactose dose, lactase expression and the intestinal microbiome. Independent of lactose digestion, patients with visceral hypersensitivity associated with anxiety or the Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) are at increased risk of the condition. Diagnostic investigations available to diagnose LM and LI include genetic, endoscopic and physiological tests. The association between self-reported LI, objective findings and clinical outcome of dietary intervention is variable. Treatment of LI can include low-lactose diet, lactase supplementation and, potentially, colonic adaptation by prebiotics. The clinical outcome of these treatments is modest, because lactose is just one of a number of poorly absorbed carbohydrates which can cause symptoms by similar mechanisms.