Search

Background: Flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS; FreeStyle Libre) was recently validated for use in diabetic dogs (DD). It is not known if this system is clinically useful in monitoring DD. Objective: To compare the clinical utility of FGMS against blood glucose curves (BGCs) obtained with a portable blood glucose meter (PBGM) in monitoring DD. Animals: Twenty dogs with diabetes mellitus. Methods: Prospective study. Dogs with diabetes mellitus on insulin treatment for at least 1 month were included. Comparisons of insulin dose recommendations based on the in‐hospital GCs acquired using FGMS and a PBGM, consecutive‐day interstitial GCs (IGCs) acquired at home using the FGMS, and consecutive‐day, home vs hospital IGCs acquired using the FGMS were made using concordance analysis. Results: There was good concordance between insulin dose recommendations based on FGMS and PBGM generated GCs and IGCs obtained in the 2 different environments on 2 consecutive days, but almost absent concordance between IGCs obtained on 2 consecutive days at home. Glucose nadirs were detected in 34/43 (79%) of Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) reports of the FGMS. In comparison, concordant glucose nadirs were identified in 14/34 (41%) BGCs using PBGM. The individual FGMS scans and PBGM identified 60% and 9% of low IG/hypoglycemic episodes, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Insulin dose adjustments based on BGCs can be suboptimal. The FGMS allows a more accurate identification of the glucose nadirs and hypoglycemic episodes compared to the use of a PBGM and assessment of day‐to‐day variations in glycemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) has been validated for use in dogs with diabetes mellitus and diabetic ketoacidosis. It continuously measures the glucose in the interstitial fluid through a small filament (5 mm long) inserted under the skin. Interstitial glucose concentrations are reportedly comparable to whole blood glucose concentrations. However, several factors can influence the performance of interstitial sensors, including the proportion of interstitial fluid in a tissue. The influence of skin thickness on flash glucose monitoring system accuracy has not been investigated in previous studies; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate whether FGMS accuracy is affected by skin thickness. On the basis of our results, skin thickness seems to affect FGMS measurements; the mean bias was significantly inversely correlated (p = 0.02; r = −0.6) with the mean skin thickness, and clinical accuracy according to ISO 15197:2013 criteria was observed only in dogs with skin thickness > 5 mm, with 99% of the results falling in zone A + B of the Parkes consensus error grid analysis. In dogs with thin skin (<5 mm), the clinical accuracy was low, and the results should be interpreted with caution. A flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS) has been validated for use in diabetic dogs. However, it is unknown whether skin thickness affects FGMS measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether FGMS accuracy is affected by skin thickness. Fourteen client-owned diabetic dogs on insulin treatment were prospectively enrolled in the study. The dogs were divided into two groups according to their ultrasound-measured skin thickness: dogs with skin thickness < 5 mm (Group 1) and dogs with skin thickness > 5 mm (Group 2). On days 1, 7 and 14, glucose curves were obtained simultaneously using the FGMS and a validated portable blood glucose meter. Paired measurements were used to calculate the mean bias and to determine accuracy according to ISO 15197:2013 criteria. The mean bias was significantly inversely correlated (p = 0.02; r = −0.6) with the mean skin thickness. Clinical accuracy was observed only in Group 2, with 99% of the results in zone A + B of the Parkes consensus error grid analysis. In conclusion, skin thickness seems to affect FGMS measurements, and the device is accurate in dogs with thicker skin (>5 mm); in dogs with thin skin (<5 mm), the clinical accuracy is low, and the results should be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]