BACKGROUND: Performance of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may be lower when glucose levels are changing rapidly, such as occurs during physical activity. Our aim was to evaluate accuracy of a current-generation CGM during moderate-intensity exercise in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: As part of a study of 24-h closed-loop insulin delivery in 12 women with T1D (disease duration, 17.6 years; glycosylated hemoglobin, 6.4%) during pregnancy (gestation, 21 weeks), we evaluated the Freestyle Navigator(®) sensor (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during afternoon (15:00-18:00 h) and morning (09:30-12:30 h) exercise (55 min of brisk walking on a treadmill followed by a 2-h recovery), compared with sedentary conditions (18:00-09:00 h). Plasma (reference) glucose, measured at regular 15-30-min intervals with the YSI Ltd. (Fleet, United Kingdom) model YSI 2300 analyzer, was used to assess CGM performance. RESULTS: Sensor accuracy, as indicated by the larger relative absolute difference (RAD) between paired sensor and reference glucose values, was lower during exercise compared with rest (median RAD, 11.8% vs. 18.4%; P<0.001). These differences remained significant when correcting for plasma glucose relative rate of change (P<0.001). Analysis by glucose range showed lower accuracy during hypoglycemia for both sedentary (median RAD, 24.4%) and exercise (median RAD, 32.1%) conditions. Using Clarke error grid analysis, 96% of CGM values were clinically safe under resting conditions compared with only 87% during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sedentary conditions, accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator CGM was lower during moderate-intensity exercise in pregnant women with T1D. This difference was particularly marked in hypoglycemia and could not be solely explained by the glucose rate of change associated with physical activity.
BACKGROUND: Performance of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may be lower when glucose levels are changing rapidly, such as occurs during physical activity. Our aim was to evaluate accuracy of a current-generation CGM during moderate-intensity exercise in type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: As part of a study of 24-h closed-loop insulin delivery in 12 women with T1D (disease duration, 17.6 years; glycosylated hemoglobin, 6.4%) during pregnancy (gestation, 21 weeks), we evaluated the Freestyle Navigator(®) sensor (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during afternoon (15:00-18:00 h) and morning (09:30-12:30 h) exercise (55 min of brisk walking on a treadmill followed by a 2-h recovery), compared with sedentary conditions (18:00-09:00 h). Plasma (reference) glucose, measured at regular 15-30-min intervals with the YSI Ltd. (Fleet, United Kingdom) model YSI 2300 analyzer, was used to assess CGM performance. RESULTS: Sensor accuracy, as indicated by the larger relative absolute difference (RAD) between paired sensor and reference glucose values, was lower during exercise compared with rest (median RAD, 11.8% vs. 18.4%; P<0.001). These differences remained significant when correcting for plasma glucose relative rate of change (P<0.001). Analysis by glucose range showed lower accuracy during hypoglycemia for both sedentary (median RAD, 24.4%) and exercise (median RAD, 32.1%) conditions. Using Clarke error grid analysis, 96% of CGM values were clinically safe under resting conditions compared with only 87% during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sedentary conditions, accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator CGM was lower during moderate-intensity exercise in pregnant women with T1D. This difference was particularly marked in hypoglycemia and could not be solely explained by the glucose rate of change associated with physical activity.
Authors: Bernard Zinman; Neil Ruderman; Barbara N Campaigne; John T Devlin; Stephen H Schneider Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Bruce A Buckingham; Craig Kollman; Roy Beck; Andrea Kalajian; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Michael J Tansey; Larry A Fox; Darrell M Wilson; Stuart A Weinzimer; Katrina J Ruedy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jane E Yardley; Ronald J Sigal; Glen P Kenny; Michael C Riddell; Leif E Lovblom; Bruce A Perkins Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Satish K Garg; James Smith; Christie Beatson; Benita Lopez-Baca; Mary Voelmle; Peter A Gottlieb Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Sinéad M O'Neill; Louise C Kenny; Ali S Khashan; Helen M West; Rebecca Md Smyth; Patricia M Kearney Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-02-03
Authors: Marc D Breton; Sue A Brown; Colleen Hughes Karvetski; Laura Kollar; Katarina A Topchyan; Stacey M Anderson; Boris P Kovatchev Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Florian H Guillot; Peter G Jacobs; Leah M Wilson; Joseph El Youssef; Virginia B Gabo; Deborah L Branigan; Nichole S Tyler; Katrina Ramsey; Michael C Riddell; Jessica R Castle Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2020-09-29