AIM: To investigate the accuracy and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring system (FSL-CGM) at alternative sites during free living and under experimental conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes were provided with three FSL-CGM sensors applied to the upper arm, the lower back, and the anterior chest. On day 2 or 3, FSL-CGM sensor glucose was compared with venous glucose following a standard meal, during and after an exercise test, and after skin cooling. Participants completed 14-day use of the sensors with concomitant sensor scanning at all sites and capillary glucose tests. The primary outcome was accuracy between sensor sites of 14-day mean glucose. Clarke's error grids, precision absolute relative deviation, and mean absolute relative deviation were calculated. RESULTS: In the 20 participants, compared with the arm sensor, the accuracy of the back sensor and the chest sensor was 97.9% and 98%, respectively. Under experimental conditions, the arm sensor was more accurate than that of the back and chest. All the sensors recorded higher glucose concentration than venous samples during exercise. The arm and chest sites were most preferred, with the greatest sensor failures from the back. CONCLUSIONS: The FSL-CGM is clinically accurate when the sensors are applied to alternate chest or back sites. Greater variability occurs during rapid changes in glucose concentration with all sensor sites compared with venous glucose. Understanding these variabilities allows appropriate use of an economically viable continuous glucose monitor.
AIM: To investigate the accuracy and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring system (FSL-CGM) at alternative sites during free living and under experimental conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with type 1 diabetes were provided with three FSL-CGM sensors applied to the upper arm, the lower back, and the anterior chest. On day 2 or 3, FSL-CGM sensor glucose was compared with venous glucose following a standard meal, during and after an exercise test, and after skin cooling. Participants completed 14-day use of the sensors with concomitant sensor scanning at all sites and capillary glucose tests. The primary outcome was accuracy between sensor sites of 14-day mean glucose. Clarke's error grids, precision absolute relative deviation, and mean absolute relative deviation were calculated. RESULTS: In the 20 participants, compared with the arm sensor, the accuracy of the back sensor and the chest sensor was 97.9% and 98%, respectively. Under experimental conditions, the arm sensor was more accurate than that of the back and chest. All the sensors recorded higher glucose concentration than venous samples during exercise. The arm and chest sites were most preferred, with the greatest sensor failures from the back. CONCLUSIONS: The FSL-CGM is clinically accurate when the sensors are applied to alternate chest or back sites. Greater variability occurs during rapid changes in glucose concentration with all sensor sites compared with venous glucose. Understanding these variabilities allows appropriate use of an economically viable continuous glucose monitor.