Search

A user-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) system is compared to a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system and assessed in terms of accuracy and acceptability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).Ten participants with T1D were enroled from a specialist diabetes centre in Singapore and provided with the Guardian Connect with Enlite Sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) and first-generation Freestyle Libre System (Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK), worn simultaneously. Participants had to check capillary blood glucose four times per day. At the end of week 1 and week 2, participants returned for data download and were given a user evaluation survey.Accuracy evaluation between Guardian Connect and Freestyle Libre includes the overall mean absolute relative difference value (9.7 ± 11.0% vs. 17.5 ± 10.9%), Clarke Error Grid zones A + B (98.6% vs. 98.1%), sensitivity (78.9% vs. 63.4%), and specificity (93.4% vs. 81.0%). Notably, time below range (3.9 mmol/L) was 10.5% for FGM versus 2% for rt-CGM. From the evaluation survey, 90% of participants perceived rt-CGM to be accurate versus 40% for FGM, although the majority found both devices to be easy to use, educational, and useful in improving glycaemic control. However, due to the cost of sensors, only 30% were keen to use either device for continuous monitoring.Although rt-CGM was superior to FGM in terms of accuracy, the value of glucose trends in both devices is still useful in diabetes self-management. Patients and clinicians may consider either technology depending on their requirements.

AIMS This real-world observational clinical programme evaluated short and medium-term effects of intermittent flash glucose monitoring on HbA1c, glycaemic variability and lifestyle behavioural changes. METHODS Two first-generation Libre flash glucose monitoring sensors were provided 3-4 months apart with a food, activity diary, user evaluation survey and treatment modification after each sensor wear. T-tests were used to compare glucose variables within each sensor (week 1 vs. week 2) and between sensors (1st sensor vs. 2nd sensor). EasyGV software was used to calculate glycaemic variability. RESULTS From 42 type 1 diabetes and 120 type 2 diabetes participants, there was no statistically significant change in mean HbA1c for participants with type 1 diabetes at 3-4 months after the 1st sensor but there was a statistically significant HbA1c reduction for participants with type 2 diabetes [-4 mmol/mol (-0.4%), p = 0.008], despite no statistically significant differences in carbohydrate intake, exercise frequency and duration. Greater reduction was seen in those with baseline HbA1c> 86 mmol/mol (10%) in both type 1 [-12 mmol/mol (-1.1%), p = 0.009] and type 2 diabetes [-11 mmol/mol (-1.0%), p = 0.001). Both type 1 and type 2 diabetes showed improvements in Glucose Management Indicator and percentage time-above-range when comparing week 1 versus week 2 of the same sensor. Higher scan frequency resulted in improved glycaemic parameters and certain measures of glycaemic variability. The majority of participants (85%) agreed that flash glucose monitoring is a useful device but only 60% were keen to use it for daily monitoring. CONCLUSION Constant feedback from flash glucose monitoring improves glycaemic parameters within the first week of wear. Intermittent use 3-4 months apart resulted in greater improvements for those with higher baseline HbA1c.