@daisymae, you should discuss your experience w Abbott and like k to tour Abbott feedback thread, I can’t from my phone.
I thought I had read (sorry, I have forgotten where) that it dies in 10 days for US; 14 days is outside the US.
How often would you say you test with finger pricks each day? And the main reason I’d like a CGM right now is to see trends after certain foods/meals, etc to better tighten my control - is it consistent enough throughout the day to show those trends fairly accurately?
1 Like
Oh that’s right the lifespan was shortened for the US 
Well, I don’t use the libre anymore (medtronic now) but when I did I usually did about 3 pricks a day unless I felt weird. It would usually be before meals for a better bolus.
You will definitely be able to see food trends!
2 Likes
That is correct. If you buy the sensor here, it will die in 10 days if you use the official reader.
1 Like
Good to know - thank you!
So about that if… 
Guess I should go look at the posts about the Libre again.
2 Likes
Michel, if you go to the “vendors” topic thread, you will find my post about Abbott. they were horrible and i would not use their products based upon their miserable customer service.
2 Likes
I always had great customer and technical support interactions with Animas, Dexcom and Tandem.
I am (was in the case of Animas) on the frequent caller program. Give me a 24x7 tech support number and better believe I am going to use it.
2 Likes
That’s what I’ve heard, too. Very disappointing!
2 Likes
I would put a link to @daisymae’s review but I can’t as I am on my phone.
1 Like
DM’s review:
2 Likes
The problem with their lab claim is that when your BG is changing, the interstitial readers are not more accurate than meters. They are way off.
I don’t think there is any way they could be doing tests on changing BG and getting better results. I could be a test subject and totally blow up their claim of better MARD.
This is from a post I did a while ago
@sam, when you saw your doctor, did he take a BG reading? Ask him why he doesn’t just look at your CGM instead, if he is in love with their MARD so much.
1 Like
While statistics tell exactly what they tell and nothing else, I would say that for us the CGM is correct 95% of the time, except during times of rapid change as you have noted. Getting mad at MARD is kind of funny.
3 Likes
I do not get mad at MARD. But I do get mad at fool endos who believe that the CGM is a more accurate measurement when they have not actually used it in real-world situations.
The most recent study I saw was that Dexcom was 9% for BG’s between 40-400, compared to the Contour Next which was 5.6%. And the study had no indication of whether the BG was changing at the time, which would make the Dexcom even worse.
The other thing that would make me mad is the idea that an interstitial reader could replace test strips.
3 Likes
I think the bottom line concerning absolute CGM accuracy is what Dexcom says about dosing from the Dexcom readings. The rule is that if you think the CGM is correct you may dose from it. Otherwise do a finger stick.
That tells me all I need to know about it, despite the MARD.
4 Likes
My Dexcom is frequently off by over 100 pts if my bg is actually moving… maybe they only work great for people whose blood sugar movements are closer to a speed they can track
3 Likes
Possibly Afrezza contributes to less than desirable readings for you since it could cause more rapid BG changes?
3 Likes
It adds its own complications with the cgm but it’s way off even if I’m not using it
3 Likes
I would maintain (again) that there are a lot of individual differences in CGM outcomes that mean that the average results won’t necessarily be a great predictor re: how CGMs perform for any specific individual, until those moderating factors are identified, tested, and included in predictions/recommendations. That really needs to be done to a much better and more transparent extent, if CGMs are going to be rolled out and recommended much more broadly. I still suspect part of it is physiological, like maybe there are tissue differences that make some people’s interstitial readings more quickly and closely tied to their blood glucose, as well as ones that degrade the sensor filaments faster or slower. I still don’t think it’s a coincidence that I have extremely accurate and reliable results with my CGM (to what seems like an unusual extent) and a connective tissue disorder that means all my collagen is abnormal/weaker.
5 Likes
Good point. With Humalog, I doubt we could get movement that fast.
3 Likes
Well two sides of that explanation, afrezza would explain faster downward motion but would slow down crazy upward spikes for me. So half the time it’s giving the cgm the opportunity to work better and half the time worse… the cgm just doesn’t work well for me regardless of what insulin I’m using
That’s what frustrates me about the notion that a lab report would potentially dictate what insurance is going to cover… but oh well… my insurance already only covers strips that are total junk, but they can prove they’re not junk with a lab report!
2 Likes