Cargando…

Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring (FSL-CGM) system against established central laboratory methods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 20 subjects (8 type 1 diabetes mellitus, 12 type 2 diabetes mellitus) were analyzed. FSL-CGM sensor measurem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fokkert, M J, van Dijk, P R, Edens, M A, Abbes, S, de Jong, D, Slingerland, R J, Bilo, H J G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5316912/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28243449
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000320
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring (FSL-CGM) system against established central laboratory methods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 20 subjects (8 type 1 diabetes mellitus, 12 type 2 diabetes mellitus) were analyzed. FSL-CGM sensor measurements (inserted in arm and abdomen) were compared with capillary blood glucose results analyzed with StatStrip as semigold standard. The glucose response after a standardized oral glucose load was measured by FSL-CGM and capillary samples analyzed by perchloric acid hexokinase (PCA-HK) method, StatStrip and FSL test strip (FSLC), and a commonly used CGM system (iPro2). RESULTS: FSL-CGM arm sensor readings showed 85.5% of paired readings falling within Clarke Error Grid (ISO 15197:2013) zone A when compared with StatStrip. For FSL-CGM abdomen and FSLC, these percentages were 64% and 98%, respectively. The overall correlation of FSL-CGM in the arm and the StatStrip indicates a performance with lower results with the FSL-CGM in the arm than expected based on the StatStrip in the lower glucose ranges, and higher results than expected in the higher ranges. Following a standardized glucose load, a slower rise in glucose level was observed for FSL-CGM arm as compared with PCA-HK, StatStrip, FSLC, and iPro2 during the first 45–60 min after glucose load ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: Certain matters need attention while using the FSL-CGM in daily life including the observed lower values in the lower ranges, and the underestimation of the effect of a meal on glucose response. These effects of such deviations can partly be overcome by optimizing the available user instructions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TC5348; results.