These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Differences for Percentage Times in Glycemic Range Between Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Capillary Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Analysis of the REPLACE-BG Dataset.
    Author: Avari P, Uduku C, George D, Herrero P, Reddy M, Oliver N.
    Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther; 2020 Mar; 22(3):222-227. PubMed ID: 31613142.
    Abstract:
    Background: Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) are used by people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to assess glucose and inform decision-making. Percentage time in range (%TIR) between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L has been associated with incident microvascular complications using historical SMBG data. However, the association between %TIR calculated from rtCGM data has not been identified. This study investigates whether %TIR values generated from rtCGM and SMBG data significantly differ from each other in adults with T1D. Materials and Methods: rtCGM and SMBG data from the REPLACE-BG study were obtained and analyzed. The dataset contained rtCGM (Dexcom G4 Platinum) and SMBG (Contour Next) values for 226 participants during a run-in phase lasting up to 10 weeks, followed by the 26-week trial. Percentages times in hypoglycemic, euglycemia and hyperglycemic ranges were generated from rtCGM and SMBG data using last observation carry forward method (zero-order hold) and linear interpolation (first-order hold). Results: Participants had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 43.0 (31.0-55.0) years, and hemoglobin A1C of 53 (49-57) mmol/mol [7.0 (6.6-7.4)%]. The median (IQR) %TIR was significantly higher with rtCGM than with SMBG; 63.0 (55.9-71.0)% versus 54.6 (45.6-63.0)%, respectively, P < 0.001. Median %times in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were significantly different with SMBG than rtCGM (P < 0.001). SMBG-derived data using linear interpolation significantly differed from the carry forward method (P < 0.001 for all glycemic ranges). Differences reported were greater at night than during the day (P < 0.001 for all glycemic ranges). Conclusion: The %time in all glycemic ranges reported by SMBG and rtCGM differ significantly, suggesting relationships between times in ranges, and complication status may be different between monitoring modalities. In addition, varying methods of calculating %TIR from SMBG-derived data provide significantly differing results. %TIR targets may therefore vary by monitoring choice and methods of calculation and harmonization of TIR standards may be challenging.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]