Comparison of Glycemic Metrics Measured Simultaneously by Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Comparison of Glycemic Metrics Measured Simultaneously by Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes. / Nørgaard, Sidse Kjærhus; Mathiesen, Elisabeth Reinhardt; Nørgaard, Kirsten; Ringholm, Lene.
In: Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics, Vol. 23, No. 10, 2021, p. 665-672.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Glycemic Metrics Measured Simultaneously by Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes
AU - Nørgaard, Sidse Kjærhus
AU - Mathiesen, Elisabeth Reinhardt
AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten
AU - Ringholm, Lene
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Copyright 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers 2021.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: We aimed to compare clinically important glycemic metrics with focus on mean sensor glucose and time-below-target range (TBR) during nighttime obtained with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and real-time CGM (rtCGM) in early pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational study including 20 women with type 1 diabetes simultaneously monitored with isCGM (Freestyle Libre; Abbott) and rtCGM (Envision™ Pro; Medtronic) for 7 days in early pregnancy. Time-in-target range (TIR) was defined as 3.5-7.8 mmol/L. Results: Gestational age was median 66 (interquartile range 63-74) days and HbA1c was 48 mmol/mol (43-54). Median difference between isCGM and rtCGM was 0.1 mmol/L (-0.1 to 0.5) (P = 0.50) and -0.1 mmol/L (-0.4 to 0.2) (P = 0.35) for 24 h and during nighttime, respectively. For 24 h, TBR was 3.9% (1.6-7.0) versus 2.0% (0.6-3.7) (P = 0.06) and TIR was 57.2% (50.8-76.5) versus 69.6% (55.4-81.5) (P = 0.001) for isCGM and rtCGM, respectively. During nighttime TBR was 6.5% (0.4-16.7) versus 0% (0.0-0.8) (P = 0.003), TIR was 55.4 (41.1-81.0) versus 68.8 (52.4-80.3) (P = 0.005) and 75% versus 40% of the women had ≥1 glucose reading <3.5 mmol/L. Conclusions: In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, mean sensor glucose was reported similar when measured by isCGM and rtCGM. However, during nighttime isCGM measured a clinically relevant higher percentage of TBR compared with rtCGM. Thus, the type of CGM device used may influence adjustments of insulin dose based on the concern for nocturnal hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03770767).
AB - Background: We aimed to compare clinically important glycemic metrics with focus on mean sensor glucose and time-below-target range (TBR) during nighttime obtained with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and real-time CGM (rtCGM) in early pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational study including 20 women with type 1 diabetes simultaneously monitored with isCGM (Freestyle Libre; Abbott) and rtCGM (Envision™ Pro; Medtronic) for 7 days in early pregnancy. Time-in-target range (TIR) was defined as 3.5-7.8 mmol/L. Results: Gestational age was median 66 (interquartile range 63-74) days and HbA1c was 48 mmol/mol (43-54). Median difference between isCGM and rtCGM was 0.1 mmol/L (-0.1 to 0.5) (P = 0.50) and -0.1 mmol/L (-0.4 to 0.2) (P = 0.35) for 24 h and during nighttime, respectively. For 24 h, TBR was 3.9% (1.6-7.0) versus 2.0% (0.6-3.7) (P = 0.06) and TIR was 57.2% (50.8-76.5) versus 69.6% (55.4-81.5) (P = 0.001) for isCGM and rtCGM, respectively. During nighttime TBR was 6.5% (0.4-16.7) versus 0% (0.0-0.8) (P = 0.003), TIR was 55.4 (41.1-81.0) versus 68.8 (52.4-80.3) (P = 0.005) and 75% versus 40% of the women had ≥1 glucose reading <3.5 mmol/L. Conclusions: In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, mean sensor glucose was reported similar when measured by isCGM and rtCGM. However, during nighttime isCGM measured a clinically relevant higher percentage of TBR compared with rtCGM. Thus, the type of CGM device used may influence adjustments of insulin dose based on the concern for nocturnal hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03770767).
KW - Glycemic metrics
KW - Intermittently scanned CGM
KW - Pregnancy
KW - Real-time CGM
KW - Time-below-target range
KW - Type 1 diabetes
U2 - 10.1089/dia.2021.0109
DO - 10.1089/dia.2021.0109
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34086494
AN - SCOPUS:85112656538
VL - 23
SP - 665
EP - 672
JO - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
JF - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
SN - 1520-9156
IS - 10
ER -
ID: 304474549