Literature DB >> 28740044

Careful readings for a flash glucose monitoring system in nondiabetic Japanese subjects: individual differences and discrepancy in glucose concentrarion after glucose loading [Rapid Communication].

Keiko Sekido1, Takashi Sekido1, Atsuko Kaneko1, Manami Hosokawa1, Ai Sato1, Yoshihiko Sato1, Masanori Yamazaki1,2, Mitsuhisa Komatsu1.   

Abstract

The FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System (FGM), which can continuously measure glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid glucose (FGM-ISFG), has been in clinical use worldwide. However, it is not clear how accurately FGM-ISFG reflects plasma glucose concentration (PG). In the present study, we examined the clinical utility of FGM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). In eight healthy volunteers (3 males; mean age, 41.8 y) wearing FGM sensors for 14 days, OGTT was performed during days 1-7 and days 8-14, and then both FGM-ISFG and PG were compared. Parkes error grid analysis indicated that all of 65 FGM-ISFG values were within Zone A (no effect on clinical action) and Zone B (little or no effect on clinical outcome). However, in OGTT, the mean FGM-ISFG was higher than the mean actual PG at 30, 60, and 90 minutes after loading (155.5 vs. 139.2 mg/dL, 166.2 vs. 139.2 mg/dL, 149.5 vs. 138.2 mg/dL, respectively; p<0.05). Moreover, the area under the curve of FGM-ISFG was also significantly larger than that of PG (17,626.2 vs. 15,195.0 min·mg/dL; p<0.05). In four of eight subjects, FGM-ISFG tended to be higher than PG in both OGTTs, and the greatest difference between the two values was 58 mg/dL. FGM is useful for glycemic control, whereas it is not appropriate to change therapeutic regimens based on the judgment of nocturnal hypoglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia by FGM-ISFG. Careful attention is required for proper application of FGM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Flash glucose monitoring; Interstitial fluid glucose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28740044     DOI: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ17-0193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endocr J        ISSN: 0918-8959            Impact factor:   2.349


  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of Linearity and Interference Effect on SMBG and POCT Devices, Showing Drastic High Values, Low Values, or Error Messages.

Authors:  Shizuki Sai; Mitsunori Urata; Iwao Ogawa
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-01-19

Review 2.  Flash Glucose Monitoring: A Review of the Literature with a Special Focus on Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Giulia Mancini; Maria Giulia Berioli; Elisa Santi; Francesco Rogari; Giada Toni; Giorgia Tascini; Roberta Crispoldi; Giulia Ceccarini; Susanna Esposito
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-07-29       Impact factor: 5.717

3.  Comparison of glucose monitoring between Freestyle Libre Pro and iPro2 in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Ryo Kumagai; Aiko Muramatsu; Masanao Fujii; Yukino Katakura; Kei Ito; Keiko Fujie; Yoshio Nakata; Koichi Hashimoto; Hiroaki Yagyu
Journal:  J Diabetes Investig       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 4.232

4.  A single arm trial using passive simulated jogging for blunting acute hyperglycemia.

Authors:  Jose A Adams; Jose R Lopez; Veronica Banderas; Marvin A Sackner
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Pre-cooling with ingesting a high-carbohydrate ice slurry on thermoregulatory responses and subcutaneous interstitial fluid glucose during heat exposure.

Authors:  Takashi Naito; Tatsuya Saito; Akihisa Morito; Satoshi Yamada; Masatsugu Shimomasuda; Mariko Nakamura
Journal:  J Physiol Anthropol       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 2.509

6.  Evaluation of FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycemic Control, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Fear of Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Ayman A Al Hayek; Asirvatham A Robert; Mohamed A Al Dawish
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes       Date:  2017-12-10

7.  Using Digital Health Technologies to Understand the Association Between Movement Behaviors and Interstitial Glucose: Exploratory Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew P Kingsnorth; Maxine E Whelan; James P Sanders; Lauren B Sherar; Dale W Esliger
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 4.773

8.  Differences Between Flash Glucose Monitor and Fingerprick Measurements.

Authors:  Odd Martin Staal; Heidi Marie Umbach Hansen; Sverre Christian Christiansen; Anders Lyngvi Fougner; Sven Magnus Carlsen; Øyvind Stavdahl
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-17

9.  Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Tatsuya Sato; Hiroto Oshima; Kei Nakata; Yukishige Kimura; Toshiyuki Yano; Masato Furuhashi; Masaya Tanno; Takayuki Miki; Tetsuji Miura
Journal:  J Diabetes Investig       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.232

10.  The Accuracy and Precision of the Continuously Stored Data from Flash Glucose Monitoring System in Type 2 Diabetes Patients during Standard Meal Tolerance Test.

Authors:  Rengna Yan; Huiqin Li; Xiaocen Kong; Xiaofang Zhai; Maoyuan Chen; Yixuan Sun; Lei Ye; Xiaofei Su; Jianhua Ma
Journal:  Int J Endocrinol       Date:  2020-01-04       Impact factor: 3.257

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.