Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Fulltext Accuracy, User Acceptability, and Safety Evaluation for the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System When Used by Pregnant Women with Diabetes
    Scott EM, Bilous RW, Kautzky-Willer A
    Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018 03;20(3):180-188.
    PMID: 29470094 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2017.0386
    BACKGROUND: Accuracy of the FreeStyle Libre™ Flash Glucose Monitoring System has not been evaluated in pregnant women with diabetes. The aim of this study was to determine accuracy (compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG]), clinical safety, and acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre System when used at home by this population.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four participants, with type 1 (T1D, n = 24), type 2 (T2D, n = 11), or gestational (n = 39) diabetes, were enrolled across 13 sites (9 in United Kingdom, 4 in Austria). Average gestation was 26.6 ± 6.8 weeks (mean ± standard deviation), age was 30.5 ± 5.1 years, diabetes duration was 13.1 ± 7.3 years for T1D and 3.2 ± 2.5 years for T2D, and 49/74 (66.2%) used insulin to manage their diabetes. Sensors were worn for up to 14 days. Sensor glucose values (masked) were compared with capillary SMBG values (made at least 4 times/day).

    RESULTS: Clinical accuracy of sensor results versus SMBG results was demonstrated, with 88.1% and 99.8% of results within Zone A and Zones A and B of the Consensus Error Grid, respectively. Overall mean absolute relative difference was 11.8%. Sensor accuracy was unaffected by the type of diabetes, the stage of pregnancy, whether insulin was used, age or body mass index. User questionnaires indicated high levels of satisfaction with sensor wear, system use, and comparison to SMBG. There were no unanticipated device-related adverse events.

    CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement was demonstrated between the FreeStyle Libre System and SMBG. Accuracy of the system was unaffected by patient characteristics, indicating that the system is safe and accurate to use by pregnant women with diabetes.

  2. Translating HbA1c measurements into estimated average glucose values in pregnant women with diabetes
    Law GR, Gilthorpe MS, Secher AL, Temple R, Bilous R, Mathiesen ER, et al.
    Diabetologia, 2017 04;60(4):618-624.
    PMID: 28105519 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-017-4205-7
    AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to examine the relationship between average glucose levels, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and HbA1clevels in pregnant women with diabetes to determine whether calculations of standard estimated average glucose (eAG) levels from HbA1c measurements are applicable to pregnant women with diabetes.
    METHODS: CGM data from 117 pregnant women (89 women with type 1 diabetes; 28 women with type 2 diabetes) were analysed. Average glucose levels were calculated from 5-7 day CGM profiles (mean 1275 glucose values per profile) and paired with a corresponding (±1 week) HbA1c measure. In total, 688 average glucose-HbA1c pairs were obtained across pregnancy (mean six pairs per participant). Average glucose level was used as the dependent variable in a regression model. Covariates were gestational week, study centre and HbA1c.
    RESULTS: There was a strong association between HbA1c and average glucose values in pregnancy (coefficient 0.67 [95% CI 0.57, 0.78]), i.e. a 1% (11 mmol/mol) difference in HbA1c corresponded to a 0.67 mmol/l difference in average glucose. The random effects model that included gestational week as a curvilinear (quadratic) covariate fitted best, allowing calculation of a pregnancy-specific eAG (PeAG). This showed that an HbA1c of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) gave a PeAG of 7.4-7.7 mmol/l (depending on gestational week), compared with a standard eAG of 10.2 mmol/l. The PeAG associated with maintaining an HbA1c level of 6.0% (42 mmol/mol) during pregnancy was between 6.4 and 6.7 mmol/l, depending on gestational week.
    CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The HbA1c-average glucose relationship is altered by pregnancy. Routinely generated standard eAG values do not account for this difference between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals and, thus, should not be used during pregnancy. Instead, the PeAG values deduced in the current study are recommended for antenatal clinical care.
  3. Turning cold tumours hot: oncolytic virotherapy gets up close and personal with other therapeutics at the 11th Oncolytic Virus Conference
    Dyer A, Baugh R, Chia SL, Frost S, Iris, Jacobus EJ, et al.
    Cancer Gene Ther, 2019 03;26(3-4):59-73.
    PMID: 30177818 DOI: 10.1038/s41417-018-0042-1
    The 11th International Oncolytic Virus Conference (IOVC) was held from April 9-12, 2018 in Oxford, UK. This is part of the high-profile academic-led series of meetings that was started back in 2002 by Steve Russell and John Bell, with most of the previous meetings being held in North America (often in Banff). The conference brought together many of the major players in oncolytic virotherapy from all over the world, addressing all stages of research and development-from aspects of basic science and cellular immunology all the way through to early- and late-phase clinical trials. The meeting welcomed 352 delegates from 24 countries. The top seven delegate countries, namely, the UK, US, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, Japan and South Korea, contributed 291 delegates while smaller numbers coming from Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Finland, France, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Malaysia, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Academics comprised about half of the attendees, industry 30% and students 20%. The next IOVC is scheduled to be held on Vancouver Island in autumn 2019. Here we share brief summaries of the oral presentations from invited speakers and proffered papers in the different subtopics presented at IOVC 2018.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links