Head-to-head comparison between flash and continuous glucose monitoring systems in outpatients with type 1 diabetes
- 2.3k Downloads
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is being increasingly used in clinical practice. The flash glucose monitoring (FGM) and CGM are different systems of interstitial glucose recording. We aimed to determine the agreement between the factory-calibrated FGM FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and the gold-standard CGM Dexcom G4 Platinum (DG4P).
We analyzed data from n = 8 outpatients with type 1 diabetes, who wore the FSL and DG4P for up to 14 days during their habitual life. We aligned FSL and DG4P recordings to obtain paired glucose measures. We calculated correlation coefficients, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), percentages in Clarke error grid areas, time spent in hyperglycaemia, target glycaemia, or hypoglycaemia, as well as glucose variability with both sensors. Comparison with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was also performed.
Patients varied in terms of age, diabetes duration, and HbA1c (from 5.9 to 9.6 %). In the pooled analysis of 10,020 paired values, there was a good correlation between FSL and DG4P (r 2 = 0.76; MARD = 18.1 ± 14.8 %) with wide variability among patients. The MARD was significantly higher during days 11–14 than in days 1–10, and during hypoglycaemia (19 %), than in normoglycaemia (16 %) or hyperglycaemia (13 %). Average glucose profiles and MARD versus SMBG were similar between the two sensors. Time spent in normo-, hyper-, or hypoglycaemia, and indexes of glucose variability was similarly estimated by the two sensors.
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.
KeywordsSensors Continuous glucose monitoring Hypoglycaemia Variability Calibration
Supported by Institutional Grant from the University of Padova.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
AM, AA, and GPF received sponsorship and lecture fees from Abbott and Roche, as well as other manufacturers of glucose sensors. The other authors have nothing to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University Hospital of Padova (prot. no. 74889).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Schutt M, Kern W, Krause U, Busch P, Dapp A, Grziwotz R, Mayer I, Rosenbauer J, Wagner C, Zimmermann A, Kerner W, Holl RW (2006) Is the frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose related to long-term metabolic control? Multicenter analysis including 24,500 patients from 191 centers in Germany and Austria. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 114(7):384–388. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-924152 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Boland E, Monsod T, Delucia M, Brandt CA, Fernando S, Tamborlane WV (2001) Limitations of conventional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose: lessons learned from 3 days of continuous glucose sensing in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 24(11):1858–1862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Christiansen M, Bailey T, Watkins E, Liljenquist D, Price D, Nakamura K, Boock R, Peyser T (2013) A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system. Diabetes Technol Ther 15(10):881–888. doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0077 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kovatchev BP, Cox DJ, Kumar A, Gonder-Frederick L, Clarke WL (2003) Algorithmic evaluation of metabolic control and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes using self-monitoring blood glucose data. Diabetes Technol Ther 5(5):817–828. doi: 10.1089/152091503322527021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Ly TT, Breton MD, Keith-Hynes P, De Salvo D, Clinton P, Benassi K, Mize B, Chernavvsky D, Place J, Wilson DM, Kovatchev BP, Buckingham BA (2014) Overnight glucose control with an automated, unified safety system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes at diabetes camp. Diabetes Care 37(8):2310–2316. doi: 10.2337/dc14-0147 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar