Literature DB >> 33511578

Choice of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems May Affect Metrics: Clinically Relevant Differences in Times in Ranges.

Guido Freckmann1, Stefan Pleus1, Sebastian Schauer1, Manuela Link1, Nina Jendrike1, Delia Waldenmaier1, Cornelia Haug1, Andreas Stuhr2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring-derived parameters are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of people with diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess whether these parameters, as calculated from different continuous glucose monitoring systems worn in parallel, are comparable. In addition, clinical relevance of differences was investigated.
METHODS: A total of 24 subjects wore a FreeStyle Libre (A) and a Dexcom G5 (B) sensor in parallel for 7 days. Mean glucose, coefficient of variation, glucose management indicator and time spent in different glucose ranges were calculated for each system. Pairwise differences between the two different continuous glucose monitoring systems were computed for these metrics.
RESULTS: On average, the two CGM systems indicated an identical time in range (67.9±10.2 vs. 67.9±11.5%) and a similar coefficient of variation; both categorized as unstable (38.1±5.9 vs. 36.0±4.8%). In contrast, the mean time spent below and above range, as well as the individual times spent below, in and above range differed substantially. System A indicated about twice the time spent below range than system B (7.7±7.2 vs. 3.8±2.7%, p=0.003). This could have led to different therapy recommendations in approximately half of the subjects. DISCUSSION: The differences in metrics found between the two continuous glucose monitoring systems may result in different therapy recommendations. In order to make adequate clinical decisions, measurement performance of CGM systems should be standardized and all available information, including the HbA1c, should be utilized. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33511578     DOI: 10.1055/a-1347-2550

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes        ISSN: 0947-7349            Impact factor:   2.426


  3 in total

1.  Hemoglobin A1c-Using Epidemiology to Guide Medical Practice: Kelly West Award Lecture 2020.

Authors:  Elizabeth Selvin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 17.152

2.  Data Obtained with Early Generations of CGM Sensors: Comment on Pleus et al.

Authors:  Alexander Seibold
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-07-21

3.  Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Yongwen Zhou; Xiaodong Mai; Hongrong Deng; Daizhi Yang; Mao Zheng; Bin Huang; Linlin Xu; Jianping Weng; Wen Xu; Jinhua Yan
Journal:  J Diabetes       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 4.530

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.