Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0278. [Epub ahead of print]

Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site.

Author information

1
Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, 53138, Clinical Research, Diabetes Technology, Niels Steensens Vej 2, 2820 Gentofte, Denmark, Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2820.
2
United States; christian.laugesen@regionh.dk.
3
Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, 53138, Clinical Research, Diabetes Technology, Gentofte, Denmark.
4
Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre, Denmark.
5
Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense, Denmark; signe.schmidt@regionh.dk.
6
Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre, Denmark; rikke.tetzschner@hotmail.com.
7
Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre, Denmark; kirsten.noergaard@regionh.dk.
8
Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense, Denmark; ajenthen.ranjan@regionh.dk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Integrated hormone delivery and glucose sensing is warranted, but system performance could be challenged by glucose sensor susceptibility to pharmacological interferences. The aim of this study was to compare sensor accuracy (Medtronic Enlite 2®) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to vs remote from sensor site.

METHODS:

Twelve adults with insulin-pump treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGM<sub>glucagon</sub> and CGM<sub>control</sub>) placed on each side of the abdomen before, during and after two overnight 14-h in-clinic visits. During each visit, a s.c. 100 µg glucagon injection was administered 0.2 cm next to the CGM<sub>glucagon</sub> followed by another injection of 100 µg glucagon 2 hrs later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-hr in-clinic Yellow Spring Instrument (YSI) measurements and 3-day self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions.

RESULTS:

Using YSI as comparator, no difference in the median absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGM<sub>glucagon</sub> (15.7%) and CGM<sub>control</sub> (13.4%) was found (p = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGM<sub>glucagon</sub> (11.0%) and CGM<sub>control</sub> (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator (p = 0.148). Values in zone A+B of Clarke Error Grid Analysis did not differ between CGM<sub>glucagon</sub> and CGM<sub>control</sub> using YSI (93.9% vs 91.1%, p = 0.250) and SMBG (97.3% vs 95.0%, p = 0.375) as reference measurement. The precision absolute relative deviation between sensors was 13.7%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by administration of s.c. glucagon near to sensor site.

PMID:
31560217
DOI:
10.1089/dia.2019.0278

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center