Search

This article discusses the accuracy of the professional flash glucose monitoring system FreeStyle Libre Pro (FLP) in hospitalized individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are receiving standardized basal-bolus insulin therapy. The study found that the FLP system exhibited an overall median absolute relative difference (MARD) of 8.4% and showed slightly less accuracy during hypoglycemia. The FLP system measured lower glucose levels compared to the point-of-care (POC) device, resulting in more hypoglycemic episodes being detected. The study concludes that the FLP sensor demonstrated good accuracy in hospitalized patients, but further research is needed to support the use of continuous glucose monitoring sensors during acute illness in the hospital setting. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: The aim of this analysis was to assess glycemic control before and during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Data from 64 (main analysis) and 80 (sensitivity analysis) people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) were investigated retrospectively. The baseline characteristics were collected from electronic medical records. The data were examined over three periods of three months each: from 16th of March 2019 until 16th of June 2019 (pre-pandemic), from 1st of December 2019 until 29th of February 2020 (pre-lockdown) and from 16th of March 2020 until 16th of June 2020 (lockdown 2020), representing the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the first Austrian-wide lockdown. Results: For the main analysis, 64 individuals with T1D (22 female, 42 male), who had a mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 58.5 mmol/mol (51.0 to 69.3 mmol/mol) and a mean diabetes duration 13.5 years (5.5 to 22.0 years) were included in the analysis. The time in range (TIR[70–180mg/dL]) was the highest percentage of measures within all three studied phases, but the lockdown 2020 phase delivered the best data in all these cases. Concerning the time below range (TBR[<70mg/dL]) and the time above range (TAR[>180mg/dL]), the lockdown 2020 phase also had the best values. Regarding the sensitivity analysis, 80 individuals with T1D (26 female, 54 male), who had a mean HbA1c of 57.5 mmol/mol (51.0 to 69.3 mmol/mol) and a mean diabetes duration of 12.5 years (5.5 to 20.7 years), were included. The TIR[70–180mg/dL] was also the highest percentage of measures within all three studied phases, with the lockdown 2020 phase also delivering the best data in all these cases. The TBR[<70mg/dL] and the TAR[>180mg/dL] underscored the data in the main analysis. Conclusion: Superior glycemic control, based on all parameters analyzed, was achieved during the first Austrian-wide lockdown compared to prior periods, which might be a result of reduced daily exertion or more time spent focusing on glycemic management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accuracy Assessment of the GlucoMen® Day CGM System in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study. Accuracy Assessment of the GlucoMen ® Day CGM System in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study. Therefore, also given the small sample size of this study, MAD was considered to be more appropriate for lower glucose concentration ranges, while the chosen cut-off of 100 mg/dL was derived for comparison purposes with available data for this system and other CGM studies [[2], [4]]. [Extracted from the article]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a novel continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system designed for needle-free insertion and reduced environmental impact. We assessed the sensor performance of two GlucoMen® Day CGM systems worn simultaneously by eight participants with type 1 diabetes. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed regularly over 14 days at home. Participants underwent two standardized, 5-h meal challenges at the research center with frequent plasma glucose (PG) measurements using a laboratory reference (YSI) instrument. When comparing CGM to PG, the overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 9.7 [2.6–14.6]%. The overall MARD for CGM vs. SMBG was 13.1 [3.5–18.6]%. The consensus error grid (CEG) analysis showed 98% of both CGM/PG and CGM/SMBG pairs in the clinically acceptable zones A and B. The analysis confirmed that GlucoMen® Day CGM meets the clinical requirements for state-of-the-art CGM. In addition, the needle-free insertion technology is well tolerated by users and reduces medical waste compared to conventional CGM systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies on CGM assume equal glycemic control between MDI and CSII. However, observation periods are often short and the impact of hypoglycemia on glycemic control and variability is unclear. In this study, we analyzed 12846 days (35 years; CSII 2232 days [6 years]; MDI 10614 days [29 years]) of CGM readings obtained from 99 patients with T1D. In the overall analysis mean glucose was 169.6 ± 18.9mg/dl for CSII and 175.0 ± 29.5 mg/dl for MDI. Estimated A1c was 7.54 ± 0.66% (CSII) and 7.7 ± 1.0% (MDI). Percentage of readings in target range (70-180mg/dL) was 54.0 ± 15.5% for CSII and 57.4 ± 11.4% for MDI. In total, 3.1/2.2% of readings were < 54 mg/dL and 14.9/12.4% were > 250mg/dL for CSII and MDI, respectively. In total, 464 hypoglycemic events (< 54mg/dL) occurred in CSII (day: 305 [64%]; night: 170 [36%]), corresponding to 0.21 hypoglycemic events daily. In MDI, 2297 hypoglycemic events occurred (day: 1507/66%; night: 783/34%), corresponding to 0.22 hypoglycemic events daily. Mean duration of hypoglycemia was 146.5 ± 65.9 minutes (CSII) and 132.8 ± 42.8 minutes (MDI); 233 (CSII) vs. 982 (MDI) events were prolonged (>120 minutes). CV was 41.1 ± 6.7% for CSII and 40.8 ± 3.8% for MDI. In the 24 hours prior to hypoglycemia, mean glucose was higher (182.9 ± 30.5 vs. 166.9 ± 26.6mg/dl; p<0.001 for CSII and 167.2 ± 14.7 vs. 152.7 ± 19.1mg/dl; p=0.013 for MDI) and CV was lower (p<0.001 for both treatments) compared to the subsequent 24 hours. Age correlated to CV (r=-.254; p=0.028 for MDI), HbA1c to eA1c (r=.611; p=0.009 for CSII; r=.482; p=0.028 for MDI), and C-peptide to CGM-readings in target range (r=.246; p=0.042 for MDI), which negatively correlated to HbA1c (r=-.484; p<0.001 for MDI). Glycemic control was comparable between MDI and CSII in T1D. Glycemic variability was lower prior to a hypoglycemic event and in older patients, while remaining insulin secretion was associated with longer time in target range. Disclosure: A. Melmer: None. T. Züger: None. T. Pöttler: None. H. Kojzar: None. M. Cigler: None. F. Aberer: None. M. Laimer: None. J.K. Mader: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Prediktor Medical, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; decide Clinical Software GmbH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]