Comparison of Interstitial Fluid Glucose Levels Obtained by Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Hemodialysis

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of flash glucose monitoring (FGM, FreeStyle Libre Pro [FSL-Pro]) remains unclear in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing hemodialysis. Methods: We assessed 13 patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis. They simultaneously underwent FGM, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM, iPro2), and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Results: Parkes error grid analysis against SMBG showed that 49.0% and 51.0% of interstitial fluid glucose (ISFG) levels measured using FGM and 93.3% and 6.7% of those measured using CGM fell into zones A and B, respectively. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) against SMBG for FGM was significantly higher than that for CGM (19.5% ± 13.2% vs 8.1% ± 7.6%, P < .0001). Parkes error grid analysis of 2496 paired ISFG levels between FGM and CGM showed that 53.6%, 46.2%, and 0.2% of the plots fell into zones A, B, and C, respectively. Mean ISFG levels were lower with FGM than with CGM (143.7 ± 67.2 mg/dL vs 164.6 ± 58.5 mg/dL; P < .0001). Mean absolute relative difference of ISFG levels between FGM and CGM was 19.2% ± 13.8%. Among three groups classified according to CGM ISFG levels (hypoglycemia, <70 mg/dL; euglycemia, 70-180 mg/dL; and hyperglycemia, >180 mg/dL), the MARDs for hypoglycemia (31.9% ± 25.0%) and euglycemia (22.8% ± 14.6%) were significantly higher than MARD for hyperglycemia (13.0% ± 8.5%) ( P < .0001 in both). Conclusions: Flash glucose monitoring may be clinically acceptable. Average ISFG levels were lower with FGM than with CGM, and MARDs were higher for hypoglycemia and euglycemia in patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis.