Literature DB >> 33314990

Inaccurate Glucose Sensor Values After Hydroxyurea Administration.

Siobhan E Tellez1, Lindsey N Hornung2, Joshua D Courter3, Maisam Abu-El-Haija4,5, Jaimie D Nathan6,7, Sarah A Lawson1,5, Deborah A Elder1,5.   

Abstract

Objective: To assess the degree, duration, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), and error analysis of discrepant values per continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems after hydroxyurea (HU) administration. Research Design and
Methods: Inpatient glucometer and CGM data from 16 total pancreatectomy/islet autotransplantation patients using Dexcom Professional G4 and 12 patients using Dexcom G6 were analyzed after daily dosing with HU. Timing of HU dosing and median of 9.5 days of sensor and glucometer values were assessed per patient.
Results: A large positive elevation of sensor readings was identified after HU dosing. The greatest discrepancy between glucometer and sensor readings occurred 0.5-2 h after HU administration [G4 (mean 3.0 mmol/L, median 2.4 mmol/L, MARD 55%), G6 (mean 4.2 mmol/L, median 4.6 mmol/L, MARD 91%)]. The discrepancy was <1.1 mmol/L, mean (-0.5 mmol/L) and median (-0.5 mmol/L), MARD 14% (G4) and <1.1 mmol/L, mean (0.3 mmol/L) and median (0.3 mmol/L), MARD 17% (G6), by 6 h after administration. Error analysis with the G6 system found 94% of pairs in clinically acceptable range by 6-9 h after HU administration. Aspirin, also given once daily, did not result in glucose value discrepancy with the G6 system but variability was observed with the G4 system. Conclusions: There was marked elevation of sensor glucose readings compared with glucometer values [up to 13.9 mmol/L (G4), 13 mmol/L (G6)] from 0.5 to 6 h after HU administration. It is important to counsel a patient using a Dexcom CGM system and HU therapy on this finding and to advise reliance on glucometer testing for accurate glucose assessment up to 6-9 h after HU administration.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous glucose monitoring; Diabetes; Pediatrics; Pharmacology; TPIAT

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33314990      PMCID: PMC8881951          DOI: 10.1089/dia.2020.0490

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   7.337


  19 in total

1.  Near-euglycemia can be achieved safely in pediatric total pancreatectomy islet autotransplant recipients using an adapted intravenous insulin infusion protocol.

Authors:  Gregory P Forlenza; Srinath Chinnakotla; Sarah J Schwarzenberg; Marie Cook; David M Radosevich; Carol Manchester; Sameer Gupta; Brandon Nathan; Melena D Bellin
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 6.118

2.  Analysis: The Accuracy and Efficacy of the Dexcom G4 Platinum Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

Authors:  Cornelis A J van Beers; J H DeVries
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-04-27

Review 3.  Glycemic Outcomes of Islet Autotransplantation.

Authors:  Mohammed E Al-Sofiani; Michael Quartuccio; Erica Hall; Rita Rastogi Kalyani
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.810

4.  Significance and Reliability of MARD for the Accuracy of CGM Systems.

Authors:  Florian Reiterer; Philipp Polterauer; Michael Schoemaker; Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-25

5.  Continuous glucose monitoring following pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation in children.

Authors:  Deborah A Elder; Jose M Jiminez-Vega; Lindsey N Hornung; Ranjit S Chima; Maisam Abu-El-Haija; Tom K Lin; Joseph J Palermo; Jaimie D Nathan
Journal:  Pediatr Transplant       Date:  2017-06-12

6.  Accuracy of a Factory-Calibrated, Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System During 10 Days of Use in Youth and Adults with Diabetes.

Authors:  R Paul Wadwa; Lori M Laffel; Viral N Shah; Satish K Garg
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system.

Authors:  Mark Christiansen; Timothy Bailey; Elaine Watkins; David Liljenquist; David Price; Katherine Nakamura; Robert Boock; Thomas Peyser
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 8.  Management of sickle cell disease: summary of the 2014 evidence-based report by expert panel members.

Authors:  Barbara P Yawn; George R Buchanan; Araba N Afenyi-Annan; Samir K Ballas; Kathryn L Hassell; Andra H James; Lanetta Jordan; Sophie M Lanzkron; Richard Lottenberg; William J Savage; Paula J Tanabe; Russell E Ware; M Hassan Murad; Jonathan C Goldsmith; Eduardo Ortiz; Robinson Fulwood; Ann Horton; Joylene John-Sowah
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents: A Position Statement by the American Diabetes Association.

Authors:  Jane L Chiang; David M Maahs; Katharine C Garvey; Korey K Hood; Lori M Laffel; Stuart A Weinzimer; Joseph I Wolfsdorf; Desmond Schatz
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Effect of acetaminophen on CGM glucose in an outpatient setting.

Authors:  David M Maahs; Daniel DeSalvo; Laura Pyle; Trang Ly; Laurel Messer; Paula Clinton; Emily Westfall; R Paul Wadwa; Bruce Buckingham
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  2 in total

1.  Interferences With CGM Systems: Practical Relevance?

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-12-15

2.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit Following Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation in Children: Establishing Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Model.

Authors:  Natalie Segev; Lindsey N Hornung; Siobhan E Tellez; Joshua D Courter; Sarah A Lawson; Jaimie D Nathan; Maisam Abu-El-Haija; Deborah A Elder
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 4.241

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.