Literature DB >> 29258716

FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom G4 Platinum sensors: Accuracy comparisons during two weeks of home use and use during experimentally induced glucose excursions.

F Boscari1, S Galasso1, A Facchinetti2, M C Marescotti1, V Vallone1, A M L Amato1, A Avogaro1, D Bruttomesso3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study compared the accuracy of the FreeStyle Libre (Abbott, Alameda, CA) and Dexcom G4 Platinum (DG4P, Dexcom, San Diego, CA) CGM sensors. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Twenty-two adults with type 1 diabetes wore the two sensors simultaneously for 2 weeks. Libre was used according to manufacturer-specified lifetime (MSL); DG4P was used 7 days beyond MSL. At a clinical research center (CRC), subjects were randomized to receive the same breakfast with standard insulin bolus (standard) or a delayed and increased (delayed & increased) bolus to induce large glucose swings during weeks 1 and 2; venous glucose was checked every 5-15 min for 6 h. Subjects performed ≥4 reference fingersticks/day at home. Accuracy was assessed by differences in mean absolute relative difference (%MARD) in glucose levels compared with fingerstick test (home use) and YSI reference (CRC). During home-stay the Libre MARD was 13.7 ± 3.6% and the DG4P MARD 12.9 ± 2.5% (difference not significant [NS]). With both systems MARD increased during hypoglycaemia and decreased during hyperglycaemia, without significant difference between sensors. In the euglycaemic range MARD was smaller with DG4P [12.0 ± 2.4% vs 14.0 ± 3.6%, p = 0.026]. MARD increased in both sensors following delayed & increased vs. standard bolus (Libre: 14.9 ± 5.5% vs. 10.9 ± 4.1%, p = 0.008; DG4P: 18.1 ± 8.1% vs. 13.1 ± 4.6%, p = 0.026); between-sensor differences were not significant (p = 0.062). Libre was more accurate during moderate and rapid glucose changes.
CONCLUSIONS: DG4P and Libre performed similarly up to 7 days beyond DG4P MSL. Both sensors performed less well during hypoglycaemia but Libre was more accurate during glucose swings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02734745) April 12, 2016.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); Flash glucose monitoring; Hypoglycaemia; Rate of change; Type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29258716     DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2017.10.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis        ISSN: 0939-4753            Impact factor:   4.222


  19 in total

1.  Effects of glucose variability on hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  F Boscari; M D'Anna; B M Bonora; S Tresso; R Cappellari; A Avogaro; D Bruttomesso; G P Fadini
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 4.256

2.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Current Use in Diabetes Management and Possible Future Applications.

Authors:  Martina Vettoretti; Giacomo Cappon; Giada Acciaroli; Andrea Facchinetti; Giovanni Sparacino
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-05-22

3.  Simple Post-Processing of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measurements Improves Endpoints in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Morten Hasselstrøm Jensen; Claus Dethlefsen; Ole Hejlesen; Peter Vestergaard
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-05-16

4.  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

5.  Effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  I Dicembrini; C Cosentino; M Monami; E Mannucci; L Pala
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.280

6.  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 7.  Selecting the Appropriate Continuous Glucose Monitoring System - a Practical Approach.

Authors:  Peter Adolfsson; Christopher G Parkin; Andreas Thomas; Lars G Krinelke
Journal:  Eur Endocrinol       Date:  2018-04-18

8.  Use of flash glucose monitoring for post-bariatric hypoglycaemia diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Carolina B Lobato; Sofia S Pereira; Marta Guimarães; Tiago Morais; Pedro Oliveira; Jorge P M de Carvalho; Mário Nora; Mariana P Monteiro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  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

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.