Decision accuracy of simultaneously used real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittently scanned CGM around exercise in type 1 diabetes: A secondary analysis of the ULTRAFLEXI ‐1 study
Authors' conclusion
In this head-to-head comparison of rtCGM and isCGM, isCGM demonstrated superior performance during exercise in adults with T1D.
Study context
- Population
- People with T1D (8 women, age 42 ± 11 years, HbA1c 59 ± 8 mmol/mol (7.6 ± 0.8%)); 60-min moderate-intensity cycle ergometer exercise; capillary reference blood glucose (EKF S-Line)
- Participants
- 22 people
- Comparison
- Real-time continuous glucose monitor (rtCGM) vs isCGM during exercise
- Primary endpoint
- Median Absolute Relative Difference (MedARD) vs capillary reference blood glucose
- Follow-up
- During exercise
Methodological detailshead-to-head comparison, simultaneous use of both CGM systems
- Head-to-head comparison
- Simultaneous use of both CGM systems
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
MedARD
| Group | Value | Comparison points |
|---|---|---|
| rtCGM | median 14.6% (IQR 7.0–23.8) | 2304 |
| isCGM | median 11.6% (IQR 5.6–19.6) | 2266 |
Value
rtCGMmedian 14.6% (IQR 7.0–23.8)
isCGMmedian 11.6% (IQR 5.6–19.6)
Comparison points
rtCGM2304
isCGM2266
- rtCGM vs isCGM: P < 0.0001
Further findings
Median
| Outcome | rtCGM | isCGM | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| MedARD, TBR (<70 mg/dL) · during exercise | 39.2% (IQR 31.8–46.8) | 27.0% (IQR 17.0–34.6) | P = 0.0001 |
| MedARD, TIR (70-180 mg/dL) · during exercise | 16.1% (IQR 8.1–24.8) | 12.8% (IQR 6.4–20.4) | P < 0.0001 |
| MedARD, TAR (>180 mg/dL) · during exercise | 9.5% (IQR 4.7–16.0) | 8.0% (IQR 3.8–13.7) | P = 0.0064 |
Original publication
Decision accuracy of simultaneously used real‐time CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM around exercise in type 1 diabetes: A secondary analysis of the ULTRAFLEXI ‐1 study. Diabet Med. Published 18 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →