The glucose response after a standardized oral glucose load was measured by FSL-CGM and capillary samples analyzed by perchloric acid hexokinase (PCA-HK) method, StatStrip and FSL test strip (FSLC), and a commonly used CGM system (iPro2).įSL-CGM arm sensor readings showed 85.5% of paired readings falling within Clarke Error Grid (ISO 15197:2013) zone A when compared with StatStrip. FSL-CGM sensor measurements (inserted in arm and abdomen) were compared with capillary blood glucose results analyzed with StatStrip as semigold standard. To evaluate the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring (FSL-CGM) system against established central laboratory methods.Ģ0 subjects (8 type 1 diabetes mellitus, 12 type 2 diabetes mellitus) were analyzed. The overall patient satisfaction was high. Using the 10-item visual analog scale, patients rated their experience with FreeStyle Libre as generally positive, with mean values ranging from 8.22 to 9.8.įreeStyle Libre had a similar overall MARD as continuous blood glucose monitoring systems in earlier studies when studied in similar at-home conditions. The overall correlation coefficient was 0.96. The mean absolute difference (MAD) for the whole study period was 19.8 mg/dL (1.1 mmol/L) (95% CI 17.8-21.8 mg/dL), including 20.5 mg/dL (1.14 mmol/L) during week 1 and 19.0 mg/dL (1.05 mmol/L) during week 2. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and treatment experience of the FreeStyle Libre system.įifty-eight adults with type 1 diabetes used FreeStyle Libre for 10-14 days and measured capillary blood glucose levels with the HemoCue blood glucose measurement system at least six times a day simultaneously.įor the entire study period, the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 13.2% (95% confidence interval 12.0%-14.4%). In Sweden, FreeStyle Libre a flash glucose monitoring system came onto the market in 2014 as a complement to self-monitoring of blood glucose. This suggests in the short term, DIY RT-CGM appears safe and may offer families some clinically important advantages over isCGM. Parent diabetes treatment satisfaction was significantly higher following DIY RT-CGM compared to isCGM, mean difference 5.3 (95%CI: 2.3, 8.2, P<0.001).Ĭonclusion: The use of DIY RT-CGM versus isCGM did not improve parental FOH however, TIR and parental satisfaction with diabetes treatment were significantly improved. There was no difference for time spent in hypoglycemia. Although, there was no effect on parental FOH, -0.1 (95%CI: -0.3, 0.1, P = 0.4), time-in-range (TIR) (%3.9-10mmol/L) was significantly higher with DIY RT-CGM over isCGM (54.3%☑3.7 vs. Secondary outcomes were glycemic control using traditional CGM metrics, as well as a range of other psychosocial measures.įindings: 55 child-parent dyads were recruited.
#Freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring system. plus#
Families received either 6 weeks of DIY RT-CGM with parental remote monitoring (intervention) or 6 weeks of isCGM plus usual diabetes care (control), followed by a four-week washout period, then crossed over. Children with T1D were current intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) users and aged 2-13 years. Methods: Child-parent dyads were recruited for a multicentre randomized crossover trial.
No studies to date have examined the impact of using Do-It-Yourself Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (DIY RT-CGM) on psychological and glycemic outcomes. Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) decreases fear of hypoglycemia (FOH) and improves glycemic control among those affected by type 1 diabetes (T1D).
0 kommentar(er)
