Arg Bras Endocrinol Metabol.: Eight-point glucose
testing versus the continuous glucose monitoring system in evaluation of
glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.
Article Type:
Reprint
Subject:
Patient monitoring equipment
(Analysis)
Diabetes therapy
(Methods)
Diabetes therapy
(Patient outcomes)
Type 1 diabetes
(Development and progression)
Type 1 diabetes
(Care and treatment)
Glucose monitors
(Usage) Blood sugar monitoring
Author:
Fiallo-Scharer, R.
Pub Date:
01/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Journal of Continuing Education Topics & Issues Publisher: American Medical Technologists Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 American Medical Technologists ISSN:1522-8606
Issue:
Date: Jan, 2011 Source Volume: 13 Source Issue: 1
Product:
Product Code: 8000431 Diabetes Therapy; 3841315 Glucose Level Diagnostic Tests NAICS Code: 621 Ambulatory Health Care Services; 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing SIC Code: 3845 Electromedical equipment
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number:
277674938
Full Text:
CONTEXT: Advantages/disadvantages of continuous vs. discrete
glucose monitoring are not well documented. OBJECTIVE: Compare glucose
profiles from home meters vs. continuous sensors. DESIGN: Randomized
clinical trial conducted by the Diabetes Research in Children Network
(DirecNet) to assess the utility of the GlucoWatch G2 Biographer.
SETTING: Home glucose measurements. PATIENTS: Two hundred children (age,
7 to < 18 yr) with type 1 diabetes. INTERVENTION: At baseline,
subjects were asked to wear the continuous glucose monitoring system
(CGMS) sensor and perform meter tests at eight prespecified times of the
day (eight-point testing) each for 3 d (2 d using both, 1 d eight-point
testing only, 1 d CGMS only). Hemoglobin A1c was measured in a central
laboratory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Six-month hemoglobin A1c. This
analysis looked at baseline glucose profiles/hemoglobin A1c. RESULTS:
Only 10% of subjects completed full eight-point testing for 3 d, but
median CGMS use was 70 h. Mean glucose was lower when measured by the
CGMS compared with eight-point testing (183 +/- 37 vs. 188 +/- 41 mg/dl;
10.2 +/- 2.1 vs.10.4 +/- 2.3 mmol/liter; P = 0.009), especially
overnight (2400-0400 h; 174 vs. 199 mg/dl; 9.7 vs. 11.1 rnrnol/liter: P
< 0.001). Associations of hemoglobin A1c with mean glucose were
similar for eight-point testing [slope 23 mg/dl per 1 % (1.3
mmol/llter): correlation 0.40; P < 0.001] and CGMS [slope 19 mg/dl
per 1% (1.1 mmol/liter); correlation 0.39; P < 0.001]. Postprandial
excursions were lower for eight-point testing vs. CGMS, especially after
dinner (mean excursion -17 vs. 63 mg/dl; -1.0 vs. 3.5 rnrnol/llter: P
< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both methods gave similar mean glucose
profiles and associations with hemoglobin A1c. Advantages of the CGMS
were higher density of data and better detection of postprandial peaks.
However, the CGMS may overestimate the frequency of low glucose levels,
especially overnight.
2005 Aug;49(4):569-74. Epub
Jaeb Center for Health Research, 15310 Amberly Drive, Suite 350,
Tampa, Florida 33647, USA. direcnet@jaeb.org
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved.