Comparison of continuous glucose monitoring with self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes in the changing atmospheric pressures in aviation: a hypobaric flight simulation
Authors' conclusion
The performance of CGM systems and SMBG are comparable during flight-associated atmospheric pressure changes. All tested measurement devices for CGM and SMBG were suitable for diabetes-care-based decisions during flight simulation.
Study context
- Population
- Insulin pump users with T1D; 3 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) brands and 2 self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) devices1,533 data points
- Participants
- 12 users
- Comparison
- CGM vs SMBG during flight vs ground cabin pressure
- Outcome
- Accuracy of CGM vs SMBG: Spearman's correlations and mean absolute relative differences (MARDs)
Methodological detailshypobaric flight simulation, two simulation protocols
- Hypobaric flight simulation
- Two simulation protocols
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Agreement of CGM- and SMBG-derived glucose
Spearman's r, Protocol A, flight vs ground
r=0.96 vs r=0.94
Spearman's r, Protocol B, flight vs ground
r=0.85 vs r=0.69
Aggregated CGM MARD, Protocol A, flight vs ground (minimal difference)
11.85% (95% CI 9.78, 13.92) vs 9.08% (95% CI 7.02, 11.14)
Aggregated CGM MARD, Protocol B, flight vs ground (minimal difference)
12.01% (95% CI 3.34, 20.69) vs 12.97% (95% CI 4.30, 21.65)
Original publication
Comparison of continuous glucose monitoring with self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes in the changing atmospheric pressures in aviation: a hypobaric flight simulation. Diabetologia. Published 31 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →