OBJECTIVE

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is an established treatment for type 2 diabetes and obesity. The study objective was to establish RYGB’s effects on glycemic variability (GV) and hypoglycemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of 10 participants with obesity and prediabetes or type 2 diabetes who underwent RYGB. Patients were studied before RYGB (Pre) and 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years postsurgery with continuous glucose measurement (CGM). A mixed-meal test (MMT) was conducted at Pre, 1 month, and 1 year.

RESULTS

After RYGB, mean CGM decreased (at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years), and GV increased (at 1 year and 2 years). Five of the 10 participants had a percent time in range (%TIR) <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) greater than the international consensus target of 1% at 1 or 2 years. Peak glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucagon area under the curve during MMT were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with contemporaneous %TIR <3.0 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RYGB are at risk for development of postbariatric hypoglycemia due to a combination of reduced mean glucose, increased GV, and increased GLP-1 response.

Bariatric and metabolic surgeries such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) presently are the most effective means of achieving durable weight loss and remission of diabetes in obesity and type 2 diabetes (1). There is evidence that intraday glycemic variation (GV) may be exaggerated after surgery (2,3). Etiologically linked is the phenomenon of postbariatric hypoglycemia (PBH), in which patients present with disabling hypoglycemic episodes, sometimes necessitating hospital admission (4). Results of postoperative continuous glucose measurement (CGM) studies have suggested that hypoglycemic events can occur in 29%–75% of patients (57). For this study, our objective was to comprehensively profile the longitudinal evolution of GV and hypoglycemia before and after RYGB and to study their relationship to the postprandial glycemic and enteropancreatic hormone responses.

This was a prospective observational study conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01945840; UK National Health Service Health Research Authority West London National Research Ethics Committee 13/LO/1510) (8). Participants underwent study visits prior to RYGB (Pre) and at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Volunteers then had a 3 h mixed-meal test (MMT) (4) at the Pre, 1 month, and 1 year time points, using Ensure Compact (13 g of protein, 11.6 g of fat, 36 g of carbohydrates, 330 kcal, 137.5 mL; Abbott Nutrition). Blood was sampled at baseline and 15, 30, 60, 120, and 180 min from time of meal ingestion, via an indwelling cannula placed in the antecubital fossa. The participants were fitted with a blinded G4 Platinum or G6 CGM system (Dexcom) at each study visit; these CGM systems have been validated for accuracy (9) and comparability (10) in the hypoglycemic range. Data were collected for up to 7 days under free-living conditions and were analyzed using the EasyGV, version 10, calculator (Oxford University Innovation, Ltd.) for measures of GV and percent time in range (%TIR) (11,12). For details on statistical and assay methods, see the Supplementary Material.

The clinical characteristics of the 10 patients recruited are listed in Supplementary Table 1. After surgery, participants demonstrated substantial improvements in weight, hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose and insulin, and hepatic insulin sensitivity (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1), with stabilization between 1 year and 2 years in line with accepted experience after RYGB (1). No participant during this study reported any symptoms, nor were any participants admitted for treatment of hypoglycemia.

GV Increased After RYGB at 1 and 2 Years; the Combination of Reduced Mean Glucose and Increased GV Was Associated With Increased Time in Hypoglycemia

Supplementary Figure 2 shows a progressive reduction of mean CGM glucose, which stabilized between 1 and 2 years. GV, as measured by percent coefficient of variation (%CV), continuous overlapping net glycemic action, and mean absolute glucose, was not significantly different at 1 month but demonstrated significant increases at 1 year and 2 years; mean amplitude of glucose excursions was significantly increased at 2 years but not 1 year. In line with the substantial reduction of mean CGM glucose at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years, the %TIR >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) was reduced (Supplementary Table 1). Notably, at 1 month, the combination of reduced mean glucose level with unchanged GV was associated with no significant change in %TIR <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) and <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). After 1 month, the combination of reduced mean glucose level and increased GV was associated with significant increases in %TIR <3.0 and <3.9 (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Supplementary Figure 3 shows that six participants had a %TIR <3.9 above the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes international consensus desired target of 4% and five had a %TIR <3.0 above the target of 1% (13), either at 1 year or 2 years. The %TIR <3.0 was negatively correlated with mean CGM glucose (Spearman correlation coefficient, −0.55) and positively correlated with %CV (0.61), mean absolute glucose (0.53), and continuous overlapping net glycemic action (0.42) but not mean amplitude of glucose excursions. In multivariable linear mixed-model analysis using these parameters as covariates, only %CV (P = 0.034) remained significantly associated with %TIR <3.0.

Figure 1

Response of glucose (A), insulin (B), GLP-1 (C), and glucagon (D) to MMT given at time 0, plotted as mean and SEM over time. Dashed black line, Pre; solid blue line, 1 month (1m) postsurgery; solid green line, 1 year (1y) postsurgery.

Figure 1

Response of glucose (A), insulin (B), GLP-1 (C), and glucagon (D) to MMT given at time 0, plotted as mean and SEM over time. Dashed black line, Pre; solid blue line, 1 month (1m) postsurgery; solid green line, 1 year (1y) postsurgery.

Close modal

Peak Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 and Glucagon Area Under the Curve During MMT Were Associated With Time in Hypoglycemia

Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 2 show the postsurgical enhancements in postprandial glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and a reduction of glucagon secretion during the MMT, paralleling the improvement in glucose tolerance (14). We hypothesized that the following parameters, derived from the MMT study at each time point, might be associated with the contemporaneous %TIR <3.0 and <3.9: fasting levels of glucose, GLP-1, insulin, and glucagon; the highest concentrations of glucose, GLP-1, insulin, and glucagon; overall and incremental area under the curve from 0 to 180 min (AUC0–180) for each of these hormones; and the nadir value of glucose achieved during the MMT.

The %TIR <3.9 was positively correlated with peak value of GLP-1 (0.68) and GLP-1 AUC0–180 (0.63) and negatively with fasting glucose (correlation coefficient, −0.59) and glucagon AUC0–180 (−0.50). Given the a priori collinearity of GLP-1 peak and GLP-1 AUC0–180, these parameters were tested individually in the multivariable models. Only the peak value of GLP-1 and glucagon AUC0–180 remained significantly associated with %TIR <3.9 (P = 0.0129 and 0.003, respectively). When tested for associations with %TIR <3.0, these parameters were also significantly associated (GLP-1 peak, P = 0.024; glucagon AUC0–180, P = 0.01).

In this study, we show that RYGB is followed by increases in GV at the 1- and 2-year time points; the combination of the decrease in mean glucose level with increased GV is associated with significant increases in time in hypoglycemia. Limitations of the study include the relatively short duration of CGM at 7 days, which limits the interpretation of the GV and %TIR compared with those established by longer-term CGM studies (15), the small number of participants studied, and that most participants had well-controlled glycemia by lifestyle measures alone. Strengths include the metabolic homogeneity of the cohort, use of a standardized surgical technique in a single center, and the prospective design with serial MMT studies that allowed us to relate the emergence of CGM-detected hypoglycemia to contemporaneous postprandial glycemic and enteropancreatic hormone responses. Our data support the hypothesis that PBH is associated with excessive GLP-1 secretion and, additionally, a possible association with reduced glucagon secretion during the MMT. Consistent with this, both the GLP-1 receptor antagonist exendin (9-39) (16) and glucagon itself (17) are being investigated as potential therapies for PBH.

We highlight two fundamental challenges in the diagnosis of PBH. First, there is a symptomatic “gap” between CGM-detected hypoglycemia and PBH; although many of our participants had CGM-detected hypoglycemia, none reported symptoms diagnostic of PBH. Second, there is currently no gold standard test for PBH. Our data suggest the nadir glucose during an MMT is not predictive of CGM-detected hypoglycemia. Defining PBH either via symptoms or hospital admission for hypoglycemia, via provocation tests such as MMT or via CGM-detected hypoglycemia, presents a diagnostic challenge.

We conclude that a substantial proportion of patients undergoing RYGB for treatment of diabetes and obesity are at risk for development of hypoglycemia and this should be disclosed during presurgical counseling as a common adverse effect. On the other hand, it should be noted that in an equal proportion of patients, CGM-detected hypoglycemia did not develop in the long term, and it is unclear why this phenomenon occurs in some patients and not others. More research is required in the form of long-term longitudinal studies of patients undergoing RYGB, focusing on risk factors for increased GV and the development of symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycemia, and relating these phenomena to their clinical outcomes. The data from such studies will have important implications for the diagnosis and management of PBH.

Clinical trial reg. no. NCT01945840, clinicaltrials.gov

I.I., G.T., and K.A. contributed equally to this work.

This article contains supplementary material online at https://doi.org/10.2337/figshare.13260275.

Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to the staff at the Imperial Weight Centre and the Imperial National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Facility for their support of this trial. The authors also thank Dexcom for their support of this work.

Funding. The prospective Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass cohort study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Experimental Challenge Grant (MR/K02115X/1), and other aspects of the study were supported by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Funding Scheme. The research study was also supported by the Imperial NIHR Clinical Research Facility. The Department of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction is funded by grants from the MRC and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and is supported by the NIHR Imperial BRC Funding Scheme.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the abovementioned funders, the UK National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health.

Duality of Interest. N.S.O. has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Dexcom and grants from Roche Diabetes outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. I.I., G.T., K.A., P.B., H.A., C.B.-T., J.K., S.C., C.D., S.P., A.M., C.T., H.C., S.R.B., A.R.A., and T.M.-M.T. contributed to the execution of the clinical study. S.R.B. and T.M.-M.T. designed the study. C.T., A.R.A., and S.P. performed the surgery in the prospective RYGB cohort. N.S.O. contributed to discussion and interpretation of CGM data. B.K. prepared the statistical analysis. I.I., G.T., K.A., B.K., and T.M.-M.T. wrote and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed the final manuscript. T.M.-M.T. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Part of this study was presented in a poster at the 79th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, San Francisco, CA, 7–11 June 2019.

1.
Schauer
PR
,
Bhatt
DL
,
Kirwan
JP
, et al.;
STAMPEDE Investigators
.
Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes - 5-year outcomes
.
N Engl J Med
2017
;
376
:
641
651
2.
Ramos-Leví
AM
,
Sánchez-Pernaute
A
,
Marcuello
C
, et al
.
Glucose variability after bariatric surgery: is prediction of diabetes remission possible
?
Obes Surg
2017
;
27
:
3341
3343
3.
Yu
H
,
Zhou
J
,
Bao
Y
,
Pin Zhang
,
Lu
W
,
Jia
W
.
“Dual-remission” after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: glycemic variability cannot always be improved in Chinese obese patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Surg Obes Relat Dis
2016
;
12
:
1312
1319
4.
Tharakan
G
,
Behary
P
,
Wewer Albrechtsen
NJ
, et al
.
Roles of increased glycaemic variability, GLP-1 and glucagon in hypoglycaemia after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
.
Eur J Endocrinol
2017
;
177
:
455
464
5.
Kefurt
R
,
Langer
FB
,
Schindler
K
,
Shakeri-Leidenmühler
S
,
Ludvik
B
,
Prager
G
.
Hypoglycemia after Roux-En-Y gastric bypass: detection rates of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus mixed meal test
.
Surg Obes Relat Dis
2015
;
11
:
564
569
6.
Capristo
E
,
Panunzi
S
,
De Gaetano
A
, et al
.
Incidence of hypoglycemia after gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized trial
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2018
;
103
:
2136
2146
7.
Lazar
LO
,
Sapojnikov
S
,
Pines
G
, et al
.
Symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycemia post three different bariatric procedures: a common and severe complication
.
Endocr Pract
.
14 August 2019 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.4158/EP-2019-0185
8.
Behary
P
,
Tharakan
G
,
Alexiadou
K
, et al
.
Combined GLP-1, oxyntomodulin, and peptide YY improves body weight and glycemia in obesity and prediabetes/type 2 diabetes: a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
1446
1453
9.
Peyser
TA
,
Nakamura
K
,
Price
D
,
Bohnett
LC
,
Hirsch
IB
,
Balo
A
.
Hypoglycemic accuracy and improved low glucose alerts of the latest Dexcom G4 platinum continuous glucose monitoring system
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2015
;
17
:
548
554
10.
Welsh
JB
,
Gao
P
,
Derdzinski
M
, et al
.
Accuracy, utilization, and effectiveness comparisons of different continuous glucose monitoring systems
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2019
;
21
:
128
132
11.
Hill
NR
,
Oliver
NS
,
Choudhary
P
,
Levy
JC
,
Hindmarsh
P
,
Matthews
DR
.
Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2011
;
13
:
921
928
12.
Moscardó
V
,
Giménez
M
,
Oliver
N
,
Hill
NR
.
Updated software for automated assessment of glucose variability and quality of glycemic control in diabetes
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2020
;
22
:
701
708
13.
Battelino
T
,
Danne
T
,
Bergenstal
RM
, et al
.
Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
1593
1603
14.
Alexiadou
K
,
Cuenco
J
,
Howard
J
, et al
.
Proglucagon peptide secretion profiles in type 2 diabetes before and after bariatric surgery: 1-year prospective study
.
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care
2020
;
8
:
e001076
15.
Riddlesworth
TD
,
Beck
RW
,
Gal
RL
, et al
.
Optimal sampling duration for continuous glucose monitoring to determine long-term glycemic control
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2018
;
20
:
314
316
16.
Salehi
M
,
Gastaldelli
A
,
D’Alessio
DA
.
Blockade of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor corrects postprandial hypoglycemia after gastric bypass
.
Gastroenterology
2014
;
146
:
669
680.e2
17.
Mulla
CM
,
Zavitsanou
S
,
Laguna Sanz
AJ
, et al
.
A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial of a closed-loop glucagon system for postbariatric hypoglycemia
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2020
;
105
:
e1260
e1271
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.