VALIDATION OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS - A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

  1. Stephen M. P. O'Riorda, MRCPI, MD (s.oriordan{at}ich.ucl.ac.uk)1,2,3,4,
  2. Peter Hindmarsh, MD, FRCPCH4,
  3. Nathan R. Hill, D. Phil, MBCS5,6,
  4. David R. Matthews, D. Phil, FRCP5,6,
  5. Sherly George, MSc1,
  6. Peter Greally, MD, FRCPI1,
  7. Gerard Canny, MD, FRCPI2,
  8. Dubhfeasa Slattery, PhD, FRCPI3,
  9. Nuala Murphy, MD, FRCPI3,
  10. Edna Roche, MD, FRCPI1,7,
  11. Colm Costigan, FRCPI2 and
  12. Hilary Hoey, MD, FRCPI1,7
  1. 1The National Children's Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland
  2. 2The Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland
  3. 3The Children's University Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin
  4. 4The Institute of Child Health, University College London, Developmental Endocrinology Research Group
  5. 5The Oxford Centre for Diabetes Endocrinology and Diabetes (OCDEM)
  6. 6 National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  7. 7 University of Dublin, Trinity College

    Abstract

    Objective- To validate Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Children and Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis (CACF).

    Research design and methods- Paired oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) and CGM monitoring was undertaken on 102 CACF (age 9.5-19.0 years) at baseline (CGM1) and after 12months (CGM2). CGM validity was assessed by: reliability, reproducibility and repeatability.

    Results- CGM was reliable with Bland-Altman agreement between CGM and OGTT of +0.81 mmol/l (95% CI for bias +/− 2.90 mmol/l) and good correlation between the two (r=0.74-0.9, (p<0.01). CGM was reproducible with no significant differences in the coefficient of variation of the CGM assessment between visits and repeatable with a mean difference between CGM1 and CGM2 of 0.09mmol/l (95% CI for difference ± 0.46 mmol/l) and a Discriminant Ratio of 13.0 and 15.1 respectively.

    Conclusions- In this cohort of CACF, CGM performed on 2 occasions over a 12 month period was reliable, reproducible and repeatable.

    Footnotes

      • Received October 24, 2008.
      • Accepted March 3, 2009.

    This Article

    1. Published online before print March 11, 2009, doi: 10.2337/dc08-1925
    1. » Abstract
    2. Full Text (PDF)
    3. All Versions of this Article:
      1. dc08-1925v1
      2. 32/6/1020most recent

    Current Issue

    1. December 2009, 32 (12)
    1. Current Issue
    1. Alert me to new issues of Diabetes Care