A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot.
Othmar MoserMarlene PandisFelix AbererHarald KojzarDaniel HochfellnerHesham ElsayedMelanie MotschnigThomas AugustinPhilipp KreuzerThomas R PieberHarald SourijJulia K MaderPublished in: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism (2018)
To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), two CGM systems (iPro2 - proCGM; Minimed 640G - persCGM) worn in parallel using the same sensor (Enlite 2) were compared. Ten people with T1D were included in this single-centre, open-label study in which CGM performance was evaluated. The study consisted of a 24-hours inpatient phase (meals, exercise, glycaemic challenges) and a 4-day home phase. Analyses included fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Parkes Error Grid and Bland-Altman plots. During the inpatient stay, ISO 15197:2013 criteria fulfilment was 58.4% (proCGM) and 57.8% (persCGM). At home, the systems met ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 66.5% (proCGM) and 65.3% (persCGM). No difference of MARD in inpatient phase (19.1 ± 16.7% vs. 19.0 ± 19.6; P = 0.83) and home phase (18.6 ± 26.8% vs. 17.4 ± 21.3%, P = 0.87) was observed. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during daytime and night-time for the inpatient and the home phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems.
Keyphrases
- type diabetes
- palliative care
- mental health
- healthcare
- open label
- acute care
- clinical trial
- randomized controlled trial
- squamous cell carcinoma
- physical activity
- sleep quality
- high intensity
- obstructive sleep apnea
- depressive symptoms
- radiation therapy
- study protocol
- tyrosine kinase
- phase ii study
- clinical evaluation