{"title":"验证连续式葡萄糖监测仪在非糖尿病休闲跑步者中的使用。","authors":"Lesley J Mason,Timothy Hartwig,David Greene","doi":"10.1123/ijspp.2024-0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\r\nContinuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are becoming increasingly popular among endurance athletes despite unconfirmed accuracy. We assessed the concurrent validity of the FreeStyle Libre 2 worn on 2 different sites at rest, during steady-state running, and postprandial.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThirteen nondiabetic, well-trained recreational runners (age = 40 [8] y, maximal aerobic oxygen consumption = 46.1 [6.4] mL·kg-1·min-1) wore a CGM on the upper arm and chest while treadmill running for 30, 60, and 90 minutes at intensities corresponding to 50%, 60%, and 70% of maximal aerobic oxygen consumption, respectively. Glucose was measured by manually scanning CGMs and obtaining a finger-prick capillary blood glucose sample. Mean absolute relative difference, time in range, and continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis were used to compare paired CGM and blood glucose readings.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nAcross all intensities of steady-state running, we found a mean absolute relative difference of 13.8 (10.9) for the arm and 11.4 (9.0) for the chest. The coefficient of variation exceeded 70%. Approximately 47% of arm and 50% of chest paired glucose measurements had an absolute difference ≤10%. Continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis indicated 99.8% (arm) and 99.6% (chest) CGM data fell in clinically acceptable zones A and B. Time-in-range analysis showed reduced accuracy at lower glucose levels. However, CGMs accurately detected trends in mean glucose readings over time.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nCGMs are not valid for point glucose monitoring but appear to be valid for monitoring glucose trends during steady-state exercise. Accuracy is similar for arm and chest. Further research is needed to determine whether CGMs can detect important events such as hypoglycemia during exercise.","PeriodicalId":14295,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","volume":"29 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors With Nondiabetic Recreational Runners.\",\"authors\":\"Lesley J Mason,Timothy Hartwig,David Greene\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/ijspp.2024-0102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\r\\nContinuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are becoming increasingly popular among endurance athletes despite unconfirmed accuracy. We assessed the concurrent validity of the FreeStyle Libre 2 worn on 2 different sites at rest, during steady-state running, and postprandial.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nThirteen nondiabetic, well-trained recreational runners (age = 40 [8] y, maximal aerobic oxygen consumption = 46.1 [6.4] mL·kg-1·min-1) wore a CGM on the upper arm and chest while treadmill running for 30, 60, and 90 minutes at intensities corresponding to 50%, 60%, and 70% of maximal aerobic oxygen consumption, respectively. Glucose was measured by manually scanning CGMs and obtaining a finger-prick capillary blood glucose sample. Mean absolute relative difference, time in range, and continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis were used to compare paired CGM and blood glucose readings.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nAcross all intensities of steady-state running, we found a mean absolute relative difference of 13.8 (10.9) for the arm and 11.4 (9.0) for the chest. The coefficient of variation exceeded 70%. Approximately 47% of arm and 50% of chest paired glucose measurements had an absolute difference ≤10%. Continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis indicated 99.8% (arm) and 99.6% (chest) CGM data fell in clinically acceptable zones A and B. Time-in-range analysis showed reduced accuracy at lower glucose levels. However, CGMs accurately detected trends in mean glucose readings over time.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nCGMs are not valid for point glucose monitoring but appear to be valid for monitoring glucose trends during steady-state exercise. Accuracy is similar for arm and chest. Further research is needed to determine whether CGMs can detect important events such as hypoglycemia during exercise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of sports physiology and performance\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of sports physiology and performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0102\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validating the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors With Nondiabetic Recreational Runners.
PURPOSE
Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are becoming increasingly popular among endurance athletes despite unconfirmed accuracy. We assessed the concurrent validity of the FreeStyle Libre 2 worn on 2 different sites at rest, during steady-state running, and postprandial.
METHODS
Thirteen nondiabetic, well-trained recreational runners (age = 40 [8] y, maximal aerobic oxygen consumption = 46.1 [6.4] mL·kg-1·min-1) wore a CGM on the upper arm and chest while treadmill running for 30, 60, and 90 minutes at intensities corresponding to 50%, 60%, and 70% of maximal aerobic oxygen consumption, respectively. Glucose was measured by manually scanning CGMs and obtaining a finger-prick capillary blood glucose sample. Mean absolute relative difference, time in range, and continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis were used to compare paired CGM and blood glucose readings.
RESULTS
Across all intensities of steady-state running, we found a mean absolute relative difference of 13.8 (10.9) for the arm and 11.4 (9.0) for the chest. The coefficient of variation exceeded 70%. Approximately 47% of arm and 50% of chest paired glucose measurements had an absolute difference ≤10%. Continuous glucose Clarke error grid analysis indicated 99.8% (arm) and 99.6% (chest) CGM data fell in clinically acceptable zones A and B. Time-in-range analysis showed reduced accuracy at lower glucose levels. However, CGMs accurately detected trends in mean glucose readings over time.
CONCLUSIONS
CGMs are not valid for point glucose monitoring but appear to be valid for monitoring glucose trends during steady-state exercise. Accuracy is similar for arm and chest. Further research is needed to determine whether CGMs can detect important events such as hypoglycemia during exercise.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) focuses on sport physiology and performance and is dedicated to advancing the knowledge of sport and exercise physiologists, sport-performance researchers, and other sport scientists. The journal publishes authoritative peer-reviewed research in sport physiology and related disciplines, with an emphasis on work having direct practical applications in enhancing sport performance in sport physiology and related disciplines. IJSPP publishes 10 issues per year: January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, and November.