We compared the sensor performance of 3 commercially available GM systems. A total of 12 patients with type 1 diabetes were included in a single-centre, open-label study in which the sensor performance of the Abbott FreeStyle libre (Abbott), Dexcom G4 Platinum (Dexcom) and Medtronic MiniMed 640G (Medtronic) systems over 12 hours was compared during mimicked real-life conditions (meals, exercise, hypo-and hyperglycaemia). Sensor performance was determined by fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, calculating mean absolute relative difference (MARD), and was also illustrated using Parkes error grid and Bland-Altman plots. Sensor performance during changes in metabolic variables (lactate, betahydroxybutyrate, glucagon, non-esterified-fatty-acids) was determined by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient testing. The systems fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 73.2% (Abbott), 56.1% (Dexcom) and 52.0% (Medtronic). The MARDs AE standard deviation in the entire glycaemic range were 13.2% AE 10.9% (Abbott), 16.8% AE 12.3% (Dexcom) and 21.4% AE 17.6% (Medtronic), respectively. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia and best during hyperglycaemia. We did not observe an influence of metabolic variables on sensor performance.

PMV achieves comparable results to CSC both in the short and long term.

No abstract

No abstract

To compare the performance of a professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardized conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), two CGM systems (iPro2 – proCGM; Minimed 640G – persCGM) worn in parallel using the same sensor (Enlite 2) were compared. Ten people with T1D were included in this single‐centre, open‐label study in which CGM performance was evaluated. The study consisted of a 24‐hours inpatient phase (meals, exercise, glycaemic challenges) and a 4‐day home phase. Analyses included fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Parkes Error Grid and Bland–Altman plots. During the inpatient stay, ISO 15197:2013 criteria fulfilment was 58.4% (proCGM) and 57.8% (persCGM). At home, the systems met ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 66.5% (proCGM) and 65.3% (persCGM). No difference of MARD in inpatient phase (19.1 ± 16.7% vs. 19.0 ± 19.6; P = 0.83) and home phase (18.6 ± 26.8% vs. 17.4 ± 21.3%, P = 0.87) was observed. All sensors performed less accurately during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during daytime and night‐time for the inpatient and the home phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems.