BACKGROUND: Currently, two different types of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are available: real time (rt) CGM systems that continuously provide glucose values and intermittent-scanning (is) CGM systems. This study compared accuracy of an rtCGM and an isCGM system when worn in parallel. METHODS: Dexcom G5 Mobile (DG5) and FreeStyle Libre (FL) were worn in parallel by 27 subjects for 14 days including two clinic sessions with induced glucose excursions. The percentage of CGM values within ±20% or ±20 mg/dL of the laboratory comparison method results (YSI 2300 STAT Plus, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, United States; glucose oxidase based) or blood glucose meter values and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated. Consensus error grid and continuous glucose error grid analyses were performed to assess clinical accuracy. RESULTS: Both systems displayed clinically accurate readings. Compared to laboratory comparison method results during clinic sessions, DG5 had 91.5% of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and a MARD of 9.5%; FL had 82.5% of scanned values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and an MARD of 13.6%. Both systems showed a lower level of performance during the home phase and when using the blood glucose meter as reference. CONCLUSION: The two systems tested in this study represent two different principles of CGM. DG5 generally provided higher accordance with laboratory comparison method results than FL.
BACKGROUND: Currently, two different types of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are available: real time (rt) CGM systems that continuously provide glucose values and intermittent-scanning (is) CGM systems. This study compared accuracy of an rtCGM and an isCGM system when worn in parallel. METHODS: Dexcom G5 Mobile (DG5) and FreeStyle Libre (FL) were worn in parallel by 27 subjects for 14 days including two clinic sessions with induced glucose excursions. The percentage of CGM values within ±20% or ±20 mg/dL of the laboratory comparison method results (YSI 2300 STAT Plus, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, United States; glucose oxidase based) or blood glucose meter values and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated. Consensus error grid and continuous glucose error grid analyses were performed to assess clinical accuracy. RESULTS: Both systems displayed clinically accurate readings. Compared to laboratory comparison method results during clinic sessions, DG5 had 91.5% of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and a MARD of 9.5%; FL had 82.5% of scanned values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and an MARD of 13.6%. Both systems showed a lower level of performance during the home phase and when using the blood glucose meter as reference. CONCLUSION: The two systems tested in this study represent two different principles of CGM. DG5 generally provided higher accordance with laboratory comparison method results than FL.
Authors: Harald Kirchsteiger; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Volker Lodwig; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redeker; Michael Schoemaker; Luigi Del Re Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-09-01
Authors: Othmar Moser; Norbert Tripolt; Peter Pferschy; Anna Obermayer; Harald Kojzar; Alexander Mueller; Hakan Yildirim; Caren Sourij; Max Eckstein; Harald Sourij Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2021-01-15