Literature DB >> 28205324

Evaluation of subcutaneous glucose monitoring systems under routine environmental conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Felix Aberer1, Martin Hajnsek2, Markus Rumpler2, Sabine Zenz1, Petra M Baumann2, Hesham Elsayed1, Adelheid Puffing1, Gerlies Treiber1, Thomas R Pieber1,2, Harald Sourij1, Julia K Mader1.   

Abstract

Continuous and flash glucose monitoring (GM) systems have been established in diabetes care. We compared the sensor performance of 3 commercially available GM systems. A total of 12 patients with type 1 diabetes were included in a single-centre, open-label study in which the sensor performance of the Abbott FreeStyle libre (Abbott), Dexcom G4 Platinum (Dexcom) and Medtronic MiniMed 640G (Medtronic) systems over 12 hours was compared during mimicked real-life conditions (meals, exercise, hypo- and hyperglycaemia). Sensor performance was determined by fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, calculating mean absolute relative difference (MARD), and was also illustrated using Parkes error grid and Bland-Altman plots. Sensor performance during changes in metabolic variables (lactate, betahydroxybutyrate, glucagon, non-esterified-fatty-acids) was determined by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient testing. The systems fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 73.2% (Abbott), 56.1% (Dexcom) and 52.0% (Medtronic). The MARDs ± standard deviation in the entire glycaemic range were 13.2% ± 10.9% (Abbott), 16.8% ± 12.3% (Dexcom) and 21.4% ± 17.6% (Medtronic), respectively. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia and best during hyperglycaemia. We did not observe an influence of metabolic variables on sensor performance.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); glycaemic control; type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28205324     DOI: 10.1111/dom.12907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab        ISSN: 1462-8902            Impact factor:   6.577


  42 in total

1.  Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Michael Schoemaker; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Rolf Hinzmann; Adham Kassab; Guido Freckmann; Florian Reiterer; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-19

Review 2.  Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Alison F Smith; Bethany Shinkins; Peter S Hall; Claire T Hulme; Mike P Messenger
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 3.  Positioning time in range in diabetes management.

Authors:  Andrew Advani
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 10.122

Review 4.  Health Technology Assessments for Flash Glucose Monitoring and How to Use Them in Everyday Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Magnus Stueve; Oliver Schnell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-08-22

5.  Iatrogenic hypoglycemia-related hospital admissions identified through databases: economic burden and causes.

Authors:  Tiphaine Richard; Romane Issa; Emmanuel Andres; Bénédicte Gourieux; Nathalie Jeandidier; Bruno Michel
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2019-07-23

6.  Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Implications for Use of Continuous Data in Daily Diabetes Management.

Authors:  Irl B Hirsch; Elizabeth Nardacci; Carol A Verderese
Journal:  Diabetes Spectr       Date:  2019-11

7.  Comparison of Interstitial Fluid Glucose Levels Obtained by Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Hemodialysis.

Authors:  Takahiro Yajima; Hiroshi Takahashi; Keigo Yasuda
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-10-18

Review 8.  Improving pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes mellitus: modern management.

Authors:  Lene Ringholm; Peter Damm; Elisabeth R Mathiesen
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 43.330

9.  HbA1c Is Disproportionately Higher in Women and Older People With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Flash Glucose Monitoring Metrics of Glycemic Control.

Authors:  Roland H Stimson; Anna R Dover; Shareen Forbes; Mark W J Strachan; John A McKnight; Fraser W Gibb
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-10-26

10.  Glycemic Metrics Derived From Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Klavs Würgler Hansen; Bo Martin Bibby
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-12-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.