No Cover Image

Journal article 142 views 65 downloads

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 Moser, Marlene Pandis, Felix Aberer, Harald Kojzar, Daniel Hochfellner, Hesham Elsayed, Melanie Motschnig, Thomas Augustin, Philipp Kreuzer, Thomas R. Pieber, Harald Sourij, Julia K. Mader

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Swansea University Author: Othmar Moser

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1111/dom.13598

Abstract

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...

Full description

Published in: Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
ISSN: 14628902
Published: 2018
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa48089
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract: 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.
College: College of Engineering