Response to Letter by Seibold regarding Glycemic Variability and Hypoglycemic Excursions With Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared to Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Highest Risk Type 1 Diabetes

摘要

We thank Seibold for again pointing out their concerns regarding the I HART CGM study.1 We have addressed this issue in the original paper2 and have responded in detail previously.3 In brief, this can be looked at in two ways. If the outcomes from the two monitoring technologies are not comparable, this suggests differing accuracy. Data suggest superior accuracy with Dexcom G5 than with FreeStyleLibre, especially in the critical hypoglycemic range,4 which, along with the results of the I HART continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and HypoDE studies, suggest that the findings that CGM is the monitoring methodology of choice in people at high risk of hypoglycemia are robust. This view is reflected in national guidance.5