A head‐to‐head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
Publication from Health
Moser O, Pandis M, Aberer F, Kojzar H, Hochfellner D, Elsayed H, Motschnig M, Augustin T , Kreuzer P, Pieber TR, Sourij H, Mader JK
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism , 11/2018
To compare the performance of a professional (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardised conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Two CGM systems (iPro2 - proCGM; Minimed 640G - persCGM) worn in parallel using the same sensor (Enlite 2) were compared. Ten people with T1D were included in this single-centre, open-label study in which CGM performance was evaluated. The study consisted of a 24-hour inpatient phase (meals, exercise, glycaemic challenges) and a 4-day home phase. Analyses included fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Parkes Error Grid and Bland-Altman plots. During the inpatient stay ISO 15197:2013 criteria fulfilment was 58.4% (proCGM) and 57.8% (persCGM). At home the systems met ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 66.5% (proCGM) and 65.3% (persCGM). No difference of MARD in inpatient phase (19.1±16.7% vs. 19.0±19.6; p=0.83) and home-phase (18.6±26.8% vs. 17.4±21.3%, p=0.87) was observed. All sensors performed less accurate during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during day- and night-time for the inpatient and the home-phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.