Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intraindividual differences between two simultaneous glucose measurement systems in type 2 diabetic patients

Intraindividuelle Unterschiede zwischen 2 kontinuierlichen Glukosemesssystemen bei Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus Typ 2

  • original article
  • Published:
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Aims

Continuous glucose measurement systems are an established tool to support diabetes therapy. Because of different technical solutions one can propose different potential limitations in daily practice. So we tried to identify the accuracy of two different devices head to head in daily routine to point out individual characteristics.

Methods

We included 24 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to wear the GlucoDay and the MiniMed continuous glucose measurement system at the same time for 48 h. We examined the mean differences in simultaneous glucose measurements, the confidence intervals were calculated by standard methods based on the t-distribution.

Results

Comparison of glucose levels of both continuous glucose measurement systems showed that there was a tendency for higher glucose levels measured by the GlucoDay device. These differences were dependent on the time of the day. The absolute difference between two consecutive glucose measurements was higher for the GlucoDay system what means a somehow higher fluctuation of the GlucoDay measurements.

Conclusions

The differences in intraindividual comparison of the GlucoDay and the MiniMed continuous glucose measurement systems in type 2 diabetic patients may be taken into account when using different systems for detection of nocturnal hypoglycemia and the observation of trends used for therapeutic decisions.

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung

Kontinuierliche Glukosemesssysteme können bei der Therapie des Diabetes mellitus wichtige Hilfsmittel sein. Aufgrund verschiedener technischer Ansätze ist von unterschiedlichen Limitationen in der täglichen Praxis auszugehen. Um diese intraindividuellen Unterschiede zu detektieren, wurden zwei verschiedene Systeme im simultanen Vergleich evaluiert.

Methodik

In die Studie wurden 24 Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 inkludiert. Diese erhielten gleichzeitig das GlucoDay- sowie das MiniMed-System zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung über 48 h. Es wurde die mittlere Differenz der Glukosewerte zwischen beiden kontinuierlichen Glukosemesssystemen entsprechend statistischen Standardmethoden untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Im Vergleich der beiden kontinuierlichen Glukosemesssysteme fand sich eine Tendenz zu höheren Glukosewerten beim GlucoDay-System. Diese Unterschiede zeigten sich tageszeitabhängig. Die absoluten Unterschiede zweier konsekutiver Glukosemessungen waren beim GlucoDay-System höher, woraus sich eine etwas höhere Fluktuation dieses Gerätes ableiten lässt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die intraindividuellen Unterschiede zwischen dem GlucoDay- und dem MiniMed-System zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung müssen in der täglichen Praxis beachtet werden. Dies gilt insbesondere wenn diese nächtliche Hypoglykämien aufzeichnen sollen oder die Glukoseverläufe zur Therapieänderung herangezogen werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldstein DE, Little RR, Lorenz RA, Malone JI, Nathan D, Peterson CM, et al. Tests of glycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004 Jan;27 Suppl 1:S91–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldstein DE, Little RR, Lorenz RA, Malone JI, Nathan D, Peterson CM, et al. Tests of glycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004 Jul;27(7):1761–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Howe-Davies S, Simpson RW, Turner RC. Control of maturity-onset diabetes by monitoring fasting blood glucose and body weight. Diabetes Care. 1980 Sept–Oct;3(5):607–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Avignon A, Radauceanu A, Monnier L. Nonfasting plasma glucose is a better marker of diabetic control than fasting plasma glucose in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1997 Dec;20(12):1822–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coster S, Gulliford MC, Seed PT, Powrie JK, Swaminathan R. Self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2000 Nov;17(11):755–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Welschen LM, Bloemendal E, Nijpels G, Dekker JM, Heine RJ, Stalman WA, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2005 Jun;28(6):1510–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Logtenberg SJJ, Kleefstra N, Hortensius J, Van Der Bijl JJ, Groenier KH, Houweling ST, et al. Effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral medication on quality of life parameters: a 1 year randomized controlled trial. Abstract 85, 45th EASD Annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Diabetologia. 2009;52 Suppl 1:S41.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nauck MA, Heinemann L, Gutzeit M, Haastert B, Petrick S, Trautner C, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of blood-glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetic patients receiving conventional insulin treatment. Abstract 86, 45th EASD Annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Diabetologia. 2009;52 Suppl 1:S41–2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garg S, Zisser H, Schwartz S, Bailey T, Kaplan R, Ellis S, et al. Improvement in glycemic excursions with a transcutaneous, real-time continuous glucose sensor. Diabetes Care. 2006 Jan;29(1):44–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Leinung M, Thompson S, Nardacci E. Benefits of continuous glucose monitor use in clinical practice. Endocr Pract. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):371–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Weinzimer S, Miller K, Beck R, Xing D, Fiallo-Scharer R, Gilliam LK, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in a clinical care environment: evidence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring (JDRF-CGM) trial. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jan;33(1):17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Bode B, Beck RW, Xing D, Gilliam L, Hirsch I, Kollman C, et al. Sustained benefit of continuous glucose monitoring on A1C, glucose profiles, and hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009 Nov;32(11):2047–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cosson E, Hamo-Tchatchouang E, Dufaitre-Patouraux L, Attali JR, Paris J, Schaepelynck-Balicar P. Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Metab. 2009 Sep;35(4):312–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chico A, Vidal-Rios P, Subira M, Novialis A. The continuous glucose monitoring system is useful for detecting unrecognized hypoglycemias in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes but is not better than frequent capillary glucose measurements for improving metabolic control. Diabetes Care. 2003 Apr;26(4):1153–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Monsod TP, Flanagan DE, Rife F, Saenz R. Do sensor glucose levels accurately predict plasma glucose concentrations during hypoglycemia and hyperinsulinemia? Diabetes Care. 2002 May;25(5):889–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Garg SK, Schwartz S, Edelmann SV. Improved glucose excursions using an implantable real-time continuous glucose sensor in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004 Mar;27(3):734–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guerci B, Floriot M, Bohme P, Durain D, Benichou M, Jellimann S, et al. Clinical performance of CGMS in type 1 diabetic patients treated by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using insulin analogs. Diabetes Care. 2003 Mar;26(3):582–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Maran A, Crepaldi C, Tiengo A, Grassi G, Vitali E, Pagano G, et al. Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in diabetic patients: a multicenter analysis. Diabetes Care. 2002 Feb;25(2):347–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mastrototaro JJ, Gross TM. Reproducibility of the continuous glucose monitoring system matches previous reports and the intended use of the product. Diabetes Care. 2003 Jan;26(1):256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gross TM, Mastrototaro JJ. Efficacy and reliability of the continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2000;2 Suppl 1:S19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bode BW, Gross TM, Thornton KR, Mastrototaro JJ. Continuous glucose monitoring used to adjust diabetes therapy improves glycosylated hemoglobin: a pilot study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1999 Dec;46(3):183–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tanenberg R, Bode B, Lane W, Levetan C, Mestman J, Harmel AP, et al. Use of the continuous glucose monitoring system to guide therapy in patients with insulin-treated diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004 Dec;79(12):1521–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP, Battelino T, Bosi E, Tubiana-Rufi N, et al. Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2006 Dec;29(12):2730–2.

  24. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group, Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, Buckingham B, Chase HP, Clemons R, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 2;359(14):1464–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wentholt IM, Vollebregt MA, Hart AA, Hoekstra JB, DeVries JH. Comparison of a needle-type and a microdialysis continuous glucose monitor in type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2005 Dec;28(12):2871–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine I, Paracelsus Medical University Clinic Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Lars Stechemesser MD, Agnes Hammerschmied & Brigitta Gappmayer

  2. Institute for Sociology and Political Sciences, University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Mynda Schreuer

  3. Department of Internal Medicine I, Paracelsus Medical University Clinic, Müllner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Raimund Weitgasser

Authors
  1. Lars Stechemesser MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnes Hammerschmied
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brigitta Gappmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mynda Schreuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raimund Weitgasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Stechemesser MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stechemesser, L., Hammerschmied, A., Gappmayer, B. et al. Intraindividual differences between two simultaneous glucose measurement systems in type 2 diabetic patients. Wien Klin Wochenschr 124, 453–460 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-012-0201-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-012-0201-6

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation