Choice of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems May Affect Metrics: Clinically Relevant Differences in Times in Ranges

Abstract

Background Continuous glucose monitoring-derived parameters are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of people with diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess whether these parameters, as calculated from different continuous glucose monitoring systems worn in parallel, are comparable. In addition, clinical relevance of differences was investigated.

Methods A total of 24 subjects wore a FreeStyle Libre (A) and a Dexcom G5 (B) sensor in parallel for 7 days. Mean glucose, coefficient of variation, glucose management indicator and time spent in different glucose ranges were calculated for each system. Pairwise differences between the two different continuous glucose monitoring systems were computed for these metrics.

Results On average, the two CGM systems indicated an identical time in range (67.9±10.2 vs. 67.9±11.5%) and a similar coefficient of variation; both categorized as unstable (38.1±5.9 vs. 36.0±4.8%). In contrast, the mean time spent below and above range, as well as the individual times spent below, in and above range differed substantially. System A indicated about twice the time spent below range than system B (7.7±7.2 vs. 3.8±2.7%, p=0.003). This could have led to different therapy recommendations in approximately half of the subjects.

Discussion The differences in metrics found between the two continuous glucose monitoring systems may result in different therapy recommendations. In order to make adequate clinical decisions, measurement performance of CGM systems should be standardized and all available information, including the HbA1c, should be utilized.

Key words

Glucose management indicator - coefficient of variation - time above range - time below range - time in range

Publication History

Received: 27 November 2020
Received: 17 December 2020

Accepted: 07 January 2021

Article published online:
28 January 2021

• References

• 1 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes 1995; 44: 968-983
• 2 The UK Pediatric Diabetes Study Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 854-865
• 3 The UK Pediatric Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853
• 4 Nathan DM. Long-term complications of diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1676-1685
• 5 International Expert Committee. Report on the Role of the A1C Assay in the Diagnosis of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 1327
• 6 Beck RW, Connor CG, Mullen DM. et al. The Fallacy of Average: How Using HbA1c Alone to Assess Glycemic Control Can Be Misleading. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 994-999
• 7 Agiostratidou G, Anhalt H, Ball D. et al. Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1622-1630
• 8 American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: S14-S31
• 9 Kovatchev BP. Metrics for glycaemic control - from HbA1c to continuous glucose monitoring. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2017; 13: 425-436 DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2017.3
• 10 Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T. et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1631-1640
• 11 Gabbay MAL, Rodacki M, Calliari LE. et al. Time in range: a new parameter to evaluate blood glucose control in patients with diabetes.. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2020; 12: 22
• 12 Advani A. Positioning time in range in diabetes management. Diabetologia 2020; 63: 242-252 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-019-05027-0
• 13 Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL. et al. Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): A New Term for Estimating A1C From Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care 2018; 41: 2275-2280
• 14 Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM. et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range.. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: 1593-15603
• 15 Michalak A, Pagacz K, Mlynarski W. et al. Discrepancies between methods of continuous glucose monitoring in key metrics of glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2019; 20: 604-612
• 16 Pleus S, Kamecke U, Waldenmaier D. et al. Time in Specific Glucose Ranges, Glucose Management Indicator, and Glycemic Variability: Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System Model and Sensor on CGM Metrics. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020; 1932296820931825
• 17 International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic test systems - Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. ISO 15197:2013. 2013
• 18 International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic medical devices - Measurement of quantities in biological samples - Metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators and control materials. EN ISO 17511:2003. 2003
• 19 Heinemann L. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) or Blood Glucose Monitoring (BGM): Interactions and Implications. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 873-879 DOI: 10.1177/1932296818768834
• 20 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. The Lancet 1986; 327: 307-310 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8
• 21 Olafsdottir AF, Attvall S, Sandgren U. et al. A Clinical Trial of the Accuracy and Treatment Experience of the Flash Glucose Monitor FreeStyle Libre in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 164-172
• 22 Freckmann G, Link M, Kamecke U. et al. Performance and usability of three systems for continuous glucose monitoring in direct comparison. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13: 890-898
• 23 Acciaroli G, Vettoretti M, Facchinetti A. et al. Calibration of Minimally Invasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors: State-of-The-Art and Current Perspectives. Biosensors (Basel) 2018; 8: 24
• 24 Jafri R, Balliro C, El-Khatib F. et al. A Three-way Accuracy Comparison of the Dexcom G5, Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro, and Senseonics Eversense CGM Devices in an Home-Use Study of Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;
• 25 Karinka SA, Bailey TS, Brazg RL. et al. 910-P: Improved Accuracy of 14-Day Factory-Calibrated FreeStyle Libre System with New Glucose Algorithm. Diabetes 2019; 68: 910-P
• 26 Babaya N, Noso S, Hiromine Y. et al. Flash glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: A comparison with self-monitoring blood glucose. Journal of diabetes investigation 2020; 11: 1222-1229
• 27 Campos-Nanez E, Breton MD. Effect of BGM Accuracy on the Clinical Performance of CGM: An In-Silico Study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 1196-11206 DOI: 10.1177/1932296817710476
• 28 Pleus S, Baumstark A, Jendrike N. et al. System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015. BMJ open diabetes research & care 2020; 8
• 29 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. POCT05-A - Performance metrics for continuous interstitial glucose monitoring. https://clsi.org/standards/products/point-of-care-testing/documents/poct05/
• 30 Forlenza GP, Kushner T, Messer LH. et al. Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring: How and Why It Works, and the Dangers of Reuse Beyond Approved Duration of Wear. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21: 222-2229