Cargando…

Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring systems have been widely used but discrepancies among various brands of devices are rarely discussed. This study aimed to explore differences in glycemic metrics between FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and iPro2 among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Yongwen, Mai, Xiaodong, Deng, Hongrong, Yang, Daizhi, Zheng, Mao, Huang, Bin, Xu, Linlin, Weng, Jianping, Xu, Wen, Yan, Jinhua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9310046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35864804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13296
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring systems have been widely used but discrepancies among various brands of devices are rarely discussed. This study aimed to explore differences in glycemic metrics between FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and iPro2 among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: Participants with T1DM and glycosylated hemoglobin of 7%–10% were included and wore FSL and iPro2 for 2 weeks simultaneously. Datasets collected on the insertion and detachment day, and those with insufficient quantity (<90%) were excluded. Agreements of measurement accuracy and glycemic metrics were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 40 498 paired data were included. Compared with the values from FSL, significantly higher median value was observed in iPro2 (147.6 [106.2, 192.6] vs. 144.0 [100.8, 192.6] mg/dl, p < 0.001) and the largest discordance was observed in hypoglycemic range (median absolute relative difference with iPro2 as reference value: 25.8% [10.8%, 42.1%]). Furthermore, significant differences in glycemic metrics between iPro2 and FSL were also observed in time in range (TIR) 70–180 mg/dl (TIR, 62.8 ± 12.4% vs. 58.8 ± 12.3%, p = 0.004), time spent below 70 mg/dl (4.4 [1.8, 10.9]% vs. 7.2 [5.4, 13.3]%, p < 0.001), time spent below 54 mg/dl (0.9 [0.3, 4.0]% vs. 2.6 [1.3, 5.6]%, p = 0.011), and coefficient of variation (CV, 38.7 ± 8.5% vs. 40.9 ± 9.3%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: During 14 days of use, FSL and iPro2 provided different estimations on TIR, CV, and hypoglycemia‐related parameters, which needs to be considered when making clinical decisions and clinical trial designs.