No Cover Image

Journal article 730 views 127 downloads

A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot

Othmar Moser, Marlene Pandis, Felix Aberer, Harald Kojzar, Daniel Hochfellner, Hesham Elsayed, Melanie Motschnig, Thomas Augustin, Philipp Kreuzer, Thomas R. Pieber, Harald Sourij, Julia K. Mader

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Swansea University Author: Othmar Moser

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1111/dom.13598

Abstract

To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), two CGM systems (iPro2 – proCGM; Minimed 640G – persCGM) worn in...

Full description

Published in: Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
ISSN: 14628902
Published: 2018
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa48089
first_indexed 2019-01-08T20:00:08Z
last_indexed 2019-02-25T19:53:45Z
id cronfa48089
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-02-25T16:05:02.8010881</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>48089</id><entry>2019-01-08</entry><title>A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>3b249efea402d5413effa1e67f31bdfa</sid><firstname>Othmar</firstname><surname>Moser</surname><name>Othmar Moser</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2019-01-08</date><deptcode>EAAS</deptcode><abstract>To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), two CGM systems (iPro2 &#x2013; proCGM; Minimed 640G &#x2013; persCGM) worn in parallel using the same sensor (Enlite 2) were compared. Ten people with T1D were included in this single&#x2010;centre, open&#x2010;label study in which CGM performance was evaluated. The study consisted of a 24&#x2010;hours inpatient phase (meals, exercise, glycaemic challenges) and a 4&#x2010;day home phase. Analyses included fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Parkes Error Grid and Bland&#x2013;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 &#xB1;&#x2009;16.7% vs. 19.0 &#xB1;&#x2009;19.6; P = 0.83) and home phase (18.6 &#xB1;&#x2009;26.8% vs. 17.4 &#xB1;&#x2009;21.3%, P = 0.87) was observed. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during daytime and night&#x2010;time for the inpatient and the home phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism</journal><publisher/><issnPrint>14628902</issnPrint><keywords/><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2018</publishedYear><publishedDate>2018-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.1111/dom.13598</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Engineering and Applied Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>EAAS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2019-02-25T16:05:02.8010881</lastEdited><Created>2019-01-08T13:37:02.5250622</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Othmar</firstname><surname>Moser</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Marlene</firstname><surname>Pandis</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Felix</firstname><surname>Aberer</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Harald</firstname><surname>Kojzar</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Hochfellner</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Hesham</firstname><surname>Elsayed</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Melanie</firstname><surname>Motschnig</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Thomas</firstname><surname>Augustin</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Philipp</firstname><surname>Kreuzer</surname><order>9</order></author><author><firstname>Thomas R.</firstname><surname>Pieber</surname><order>10</order></author><author><firstname>Harald</firstname><surname>Sourij</surname><order>11</order></author><author><firstname>Julia K.</firstname><surname>Mader</surname><order>12</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0048089-08012019134002.pdf</filename><originalFilename>moser2018v3.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2019-01-08T13:40:02.8870000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>5479715</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2019-01-08T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2019-02-25T16:05:02.8010881 v2 48089 2019-01-08 A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot 3b249efea402d5413effa1e67f31bdfa Othmar Moser Othmar Moser true false 2019-01-08 EAAS To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized 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‐hours 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 accurately during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during daytime and night‐time for the inpatient and the home phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems. Journal Article Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 14628902 31 12 2018 2018-12-31 10.1111/dom.13598 COLLEGE NANME Engineering and Applied Sciences School COLLEGE CODE EAAS Swansea University 2019-02-25T16:05:02.8010881 2019-01-08T13:37:02.5250622 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Othmar Moser 1 Marlene Pandis 2 Felix Aberer 3 Harald Kojzar 4 Daniel Hochfellner 5 Hesham Elsayed 6 Melanie Motschnig 7 Thomas Augustin 8 Philipp Kreuzer 9 Thomas R. Pieber 10 Harald Sourij 11 Julia K. Mader 12 0048089-08012019134002.pdf moser2018v3.pdf 2019-01-08T13:40:02.8870000 Output 5479715 application/pdf Version of Record true 2019-01-08T00:00:00.0000000 true eng
title A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
spellingShingle A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
Othmar Moser
title_short A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
title_full A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
title_fullStr A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
title_full_unstemmed A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
title_sort A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot
author_id_str_mv 3b249efea402d5413effa1e67f31bdfa
author_id_fullname_str_mv 3b249efea402d5413effa1e67f31bdfa_***_Othmar Moser
author Othmar Moser
author2 Othmar Moser
Marlene Pandis
Felix Aberer
Harald Kojzar
Daniel Hochfellner
Hesham Elsayed
Melanie Motschnig
Thomas Augustin
Philipp Kreuzer
Thomas R. Pieber
Harald Sourij
Julia K. Mader
format Journal article
container_title Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
publishDate 2018
institution Swansea University
issn 14628902
doi_str_mv 10.1111/dom.13598
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized 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‐hours 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 accurately during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during daytime and night‐time for the inpatient and the home phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems.
published_date 2018-12-31T01:51:18Z
_version_ 1821368415685705728
score 11.04748

Similar Items