Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2022
A head-to-head comparison between Guardian Connect and FreeStyle Libre systems and an evaluation of user acceptability of sensors in patients with type 1 diabetes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yeoh Ester, Png Doanna, Khoo Jonathon, Chee Ying Jie, Sharda Puja, Low Serena, Lim Su Chi, Subramaniam Tavintharan
Аннотация
AIMS: A user-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) system is compared to a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system and assessed in terms of accuracy and acceptability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
METHODS: Ten participants with T1D were enroled from a specialist diabetes centre in Singapore and provided with the Guardian Connect with Enlite Sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) and first-generation Freestyle Libre System (Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK), worn simultaneously. Participants had to check capillary blood glucose four times per day. At the end of week 1 and week 2, participants returned for data download and were given a user evaluation survey.
RESULTS: Accuracy evaluation between Guardian Connect and Freestyle Libre includes the overall mean absolute relative difference value (9.7 ± 11.0% vs. 17.5 ± 10.9%), Clarke Error Grid zones A + B (98.6% vs. 98.1%), sensitivity (78.9% vs. 63.4%), and specificity (93.4% vs. 81.0%). Notably, time below range (<3.9 mmol/L) was 10.5% for FGM versus 2% for rt-CGM. From the evaluation survey, 90% of participants perceived rt-CGM to be accurate versus 40% for FGM, although the majority found both devices to be easy to use, educational, and useful in improving glycaemic control. However, due to the cost of sensors, only 30% were keen to use either device for continuous monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Although rt-CGM was superior to FGM in terms of accuracy, the value of glucose trends in both devices is still useful in diabetes self-management. Patients and clinicians may consider either technology depending on their requirements.
METHODS: Ten participants with T1D were enroled from a specialist diabetes centre in Singapore and provided with the Guardian Connect with Enlite Sensor (Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) and first-generation Freestyle Libre System (Abbott Diabetes Care, Witney, UK), worn simultaneously. Participants had to check capillary blood glucose four times per day. At the end of week 1 and week 2, participants returned for data download and were given a user evaluation survey.
RESULTS: Accuracy evaluation between Guardian Connect and Freestyle Libre includes the overall mean absolute relative difference value (9.7 ± 11.0% vs. 17.5 ± 10.9%), Clarke Error Grid zones A + B (98.6% vs. 98.1%), sensitivity (78.9% vs. 63.4%), and specificity (93.4% vs. 81.0%). Notably, time below range (<3.9 mmol/L) was 10.5% for FGM versus 2% for rt-CGM. From the evaluation survey, 90% of participants perceived rt-CGM to be accurate versus 40% for FGM, although the majority found both devices to be easy to use, educational, and useful in improving glycaemic control. However, due to the cost of sensors, only 30% were keen to use either device for continuous monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Although rt-CGM was superior to FGM in terms of accuracy, the value of glucose trends in both devices is still useful in diabetes self-management. Patients and clinicians may consider either technology depending on their requirements.