Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{97ba355143704cd198fea8635dcb554f,
title = "Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site",
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 {\circledR}) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGM glucagon and CGM control) 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 2 cm next to the CGM glucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h 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 glucagon (15.7{\%}) and CGM control (13.4{\%}) was found ( P  = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGM glucagon (11.0{\%}) and CGM control (6.2{\%}) using SMBG as comparator ( P  = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGM glucagon and CGM control 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.",
author = "Christian Laugesen and Signe Schmidt and Rikke Tetzschner and Kirsten N{\o}rgaard and Ajenthen Ranjan",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1089/dia.2019.0278",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
journal = "Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics",
issn = "1520-9156",
publisher = "Mary Ann/Liebert, Inc. Publishers",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

AU - Laugesen, Christian

AU - Schmidt, Signe

AU - Tetzschner, Rikke

AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten

AU - Ranjan, Ajenthen

PY - 2020/1/22

Y1 - 2020/1/22

N2 - 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 versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGM glucagon and CGM control) 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 2 cm next to the CGM glucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h 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 glucagon (15.7%) and CGM control (13.4%) was found ( P  = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGM glucagon (11.0%) and CGM control (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator ( P  = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGM glucagon and CGM control 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.

AB - 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 versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGM glucagon and CGM control) 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 2 cm next to the CGM glucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h 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 glucagon (15.7%) and CGM control (13.4%) was found ( P  = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGM glucagon (11.0%) and CGM control (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator ( P  = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGM glucagon and CGM control 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.

U2 - 10.1089/dia.2019.0278

DO - 10.1089/dia.2019.0278

M3 - Journal article

VL - 22

JO - Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics

JF - Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics

SN - 1520-9156

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 58035804