Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes

Bonora, Benedetta Maria; Maran, Alberto; Ciciliot, Stefano; Avogaro, Angelo; Fadini, Gian Paolo

doi:10.1007/s40618-016-0495-8

Cited by 90 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that glucose levels measured by FGM were slightly lower than those measured in venous blood (−6.5 mg/dL, 30 measurements) and those measured by CGM (−13.6 mg/dL, 1,279 measurements), and this tendency was similar to the results of earlier studies. Aberer et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In their study, the accuracy was stable over a period of 14 days of wear with a MARD of 11.4%, and was not affected by patient characteristics, such as type of diabetes mellitus, age and sex, although MARD was higher on the first day of use. Several studies have also shown that there was good agreement between measurements by FGM and capillary blood glucose measurements, and that the validity for FGM was similar to that of CGM. However, to our knowledge, no study has simultaneously examined the relationships between glucose levels measured in capillary blood and venous blood, and those measured by CGM and FGM in the same study participants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in insulin‐treated patients with type 2 diabetes

Sato

Oshima

Nakata

et al. 2018

J of Diabetes Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluated the accuracy of interstitial glucose measurements by flash glucose monitoring ( FGM ) and continuous glucose monitoring ( CGM ). Five diabetes patients simultaneously underwent FGM (FreeStyle Libre Pro) and CGM ( iP ro™2), and their glucose levels were compared with venous blood and capillary blood glucose levels. The range of daily venous blood glucose levels (30 measurements) was 70–245 mg/ dL , with a median of 138 mg/ dL . There were good correlations of glucose levels measured by FGM ( r 2 = 0.90, mean absolute relative difference 8.2 ± 5.6%), CGM ( r 2 = 0.86, mean absolute relative difference 9.2 ± 9.1%) and capillary blood ( r 2 = 0.87, mean absolute relative difference 7.2 ± 7.2%) with venous blood glucose levels. The accuracy of FGM measurements was also shown against CGM , with 99.9% of the FGM values (1,279 measurements) being within the Parkes error grid zones A and B. The results suggest that the accuracy of FGM is similar to that of CGM, and that FGM is a useful tool for determining daily glucose profile.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in insulin‐treated patients with type 2 diabetes

Sato

Oshima

Nakata

et al. 2018

J of Diabetes Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…106 A direct head-to-head comparison of CGM (Dexcom G4 Platinum) and FCGM showed that glucose profiles and MARD in outpatients with T1DM for up to 14 days were similar between the two sensors and no significant difference was detected in the estimation of clinical diagnostic parameters. 107 FCGM has been positively associated with treatment satisfaction and measures of quality of life. 105,106,108 Figure 1 gives a good example on how FCGM can impact DM therapy.…”

Section: Flash Glucose-sensing Technologymentioning

confidence: 92%

Metrics Beyond Hemoglobin A1C in Diabetes Management: Time in Range, Hypoglycemia, and Other Parameters

Wright

Hirsch

2017

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

141

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6,7 Improved accuracy of CGM There has been steady improvement in the accuracy of glucose sensors. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] The best sensors now have an accuracy of approximately -10% MARD. This has led to greater acceptance by patients and physicians and has enabled users of CGM to reduce the number of measurements of capillary blood glucose (CBG).…”

Section: Part I: Open-loop Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Recent Studies Demonstrating Improved Glycemic Outcomes

Rodbard¹

2017

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

356

267

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) has been demonstrated to be clinically valuable, reducing risks of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, glycemic variability (GV), and improving patient quality of life for a wide range of patient populations and clinical indications. Use of CGM can help reduce HbA1c and mean glucose. One CGM device, with accuracy (%MARD) of approximately 10%, has recently been approved for selfadjustment of insulin dosages (nonadjuvant use) and approved for reimbursement for therapeutic use in the United States. CGM had previously been used off-label for that purpose. CGM has been demonstrated to be clinically useful in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes for patients receiving a wide variety of treatment regimens. CGM is beneficial for people using either multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). CGM is used both in retrospective (professional, masked) and real-time (personal, unmasked) modes: both approaches can be beneficial. When CGM is used to suspend insulin infusion when hypoglycemia is detected until glucose returns to a safe level (low-glucose suspend), there are benefits beyond sensor-augmented pump (SAP), with greater reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia. Predictive low-glucose suspend provides greater benefits in this regard. Closed-loop control with insulin provides further improvement in quality of glycemic control. A hybrid closed-loop system has recently been approved by the U.S. FDA. Closed-loop control using both insulin and glucagon can reduce risk of hypoglycemia even more. CGM facilitates rigorous evaluation of new forms of therapy, characterizing pharmacodynamics, assessing frequency and severity of hypo-and hyperglycemia, and characterizing several aspects of GV.

show abstract

Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes

Abstract: In outpatients with type 1 diabetes, we found good agreement between the FSL and DG4P. No significant difference was detected in the estimation of clinical diagnostic parameters.

Cited by 90 publications

References 24 publications

Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in insulin‐treated patients with type 2 diabetes

Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in insulin‐treated patients with type 2 diabetes

Metrics Beyond Hemoglobin A1C in Diabetes Management: Time in Range, Hypoglycemia, and Other Parameters

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Recent Studies Demonstrating Improved Glycemic Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About