Dessi P Zaharieva1, Kamuran Turksoy2, Sarah M McGaugh1, Rubin Pooni1, Todd Vienneau3, Trang Ly4, Michael C Riddell1,5. 1. 1 Kinesiology and Health Science, Faculty of Health, Muscle Health Research Centre, York University, Toronto, Canada. 2. 2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. 3. 3 Insulet Canada Corporation, Oakville, Canada. 4. 4 Insulet Corporation, Billerica, Massachusetts. 5. 5 LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
Background: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices help detect glycemic excursions associated with exercise, meals, and insulin dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the delay between interstitial and blood glucose may result in CGM underestimating the true change in glycemia during activity. The purpose of this study was to examine CGM discrepancies during exercise and the meal postexercise versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods:Seventeen adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy and CGM completed 60 min ofaerobic exercise on three occasions. A standardized meal was given 30 min postexercise. SMBG was measured during exercise and in recovery using OmniPod® Personal Diabetes Manager (PDM; Insulet, Billerica, MA) with built-in glucose meter (FreeStyle; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL), while CGM was measured with Dexcom G4® with 505 algorithm (n = 4) or G5® (n = 13), which were calibrated with subjects' own PDM. Results:SMBG showed a large drop in glycemia during exercise, while CGM showed a lag of 12 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation) minutes and bias of -7 ± 19 mg/dL/min during activity. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM versus SMBG was 13 (6-22)% [median (interquartile range)] during exercise and 8 (5-14)% during mealtime. Clarke error grids showed CGM values were in zones A and B 94%-99% of the time for SMBG. Conclusion: In summary, the drop in CGM lags behind the drop in blood glucose during prolonged aerobic exercise by 12 ± 11 min, and MARD increases to 13 (6-22)% during exercise as well. Therefore, if hypoglycemia is suspected during exercise, individuals should confirm glucose levels with a capillary glucose measurement.
RCT Entities:
Background: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices help detect glycemic excursions associated with exercise, meals, and insulin dosing in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the delay between interstitial and blood glucose may result in CGM underestimating the true change in glycemia during activity. The purpose of this study was to examine CGM discrepancies during exercise and the meal postexercise versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: Seventeen adults with T1D using insulin pump therapy and CGM completed 60 min of aerobic exercise on three occasions. A standardized meal was given 30 min postexercise. SMBG was measured during exercise and in recovery using OmniPod® Personal Diabetes Manager (PDM; Insulet, Billerica, MA) with built-in glucose meter (FreeStyle; Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL), while CGM was measured with Dexcom G4® with 505 algorithm (n = 4) or G5® (n = 13), which were calibrated with subjects' own PDM. Results: SMBG showed a large drop in glycemia during exercise, while CGM showed a lag of 12 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation) minutes and bias of -7 ± 19 mg/dL/min during activity. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM versus SMBG was 13 (6-22)% [median (interquartile range)] during exercise and 8 (5-14)% during mealtime. Clarke error grids showed CGM values were in zones A and B 94%-99% of the time for SMBG. Conclusion: In summary, the drop in CGM lags behind the drop in blood glucose during prolonged aerobic exercise by 12 ± 11 min, and MARD increases to 13 (6-22)% during exercise as well. Therefore, if hypoglycemia is suspected during exercise, individuals should confirm glucose levels with a capillary glucose measurement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Continuous glucose monitoring; Self-monitoring of blood glucose; Sensors; Time lag; Type 1 diabetes
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: Marcus Lind; William Polonsky; Irl B Hirsch; Tim Heise; Jan Bolinder; Sofia Dahlqvist; Erik Schwarz; Arndís Finna Ólafsdóttir; Anders Frid; Hans Wedel; Elsa Ahlén; Thomas Nyström; Jarl Hellman Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lori M Laffel; Grazia Aleppo; Bruce A Buckingham; Gregory P Forlenza; Lisa E Rasbach; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart A Weinzimer; Dennis R Harris Journal: J Endocr Soc Date: 2017-11-20
Authors: Othmar Moser; Marlene Pandis; Felix Aberer; Harald Kojzar; Daniel Hochfellner; Hesham Elsayed; Melanie Motschnig; Thomas Augustin; Philipp Kreuzer; Thomas R Pieber; Harald Sourij; Julia K Mader Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-12-25 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Elena Daskalaki; Anne Parkinson; Nicola Brew-Sam; Md Zakir Hossain; David O'Neal; Christopher J Nolan; Hanna Suominen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Othmar Moser; Max L Eckstein; Olivia McCarthy; Rachel Deere; Jason Pitt; David M Williams; Jennifer Hayes; Harald Sourij; Stephen C Bain; Richard M Bracken Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Andreas Thomas; Mark A Arnold; Beatrice N Vetter; Lutz Heinemann; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-06-13
Authors: Max L Eckstein; Benjamin Weilguni; Martin Tauschmann; Rebecca T Zimmer; Faisal Aziz; Harald Sourij; Othmar Moser Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.241
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