Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

17 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring system: a randomized cross over trial comparing accuracy, efficacy and acceptance.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To compare accuracy, efficacy and acceptance of implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.

Methods

In a randomized crossover trial we compared 12 weeks with Eversense implantable sensor (EVS) and 12 weeks with Dexcom G5 transcutaneous sensor (DG5) in terms of accuracy, evaluated as Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) vs capillary glucose (SMBG), time of CGM use, adverse events, efficacy (as HbA1c, time in range, time above and below range) and psychological outcomes evaluated with Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS2), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS).

Results

16 subjects (13 males, 48.8 ± 10.1 years, HbA1c 55.8 ± 7.9 mmol/mol, mean ± SD) completed the study. DG5 was used more than EVS [percentage of use 95.7 ± 3.6% vs 93.5 ± 4.3% (p = 0.02)]. MARD was better with EVS (12.2 ± 11.5% vs. 13.1 ± 14.7%, p< 0.001). No differences were found in HbA1c. While using EVS time spent in range increased and time spent in hyperglycemia decreased, but these data were not confirmed by analysis of retrofitted data based on SMBG values. EVS reduced perceived distress, without significant changes in other psychological outcomes.

Conclusions

CGM features may affect glycemic control and device acceptance.

SUBMITTER: Boscari F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8246426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

The Accuracy and Efficacy of the Dexcom G4 Platinum Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System.Seventy-two subjects enrolled at 4 US centers; 61% were male; 83% had T1DM and17% had T2DM. Subjects wore at least 1 system for up to 7 days. Subjects participated in a total of 36 hours in the clinic to contribute YSI reference glucose measurements with venous blood draws every 15 minutes on study Day 1, Day 4, and Day 7.The overall mean absolute relative difference (ARD) versus YSI was 13% with a median of 10%. Precision ARD was 9% ± 4% between 2 sensors with a 7% coefficient of variation. The mean ARD versus SMBG was 14% with a median of 11%. One hundred two (94%) sensors lasted 7 days and the systems displayed 97% of their expected glucose readings in average. The time spent in low CGM readings during nighttime hours decreased from the first night use to the 6th night (P < .001) with a small difference in average CGM glucose from 147 ± 40 mg/dL to 166 ± 62 mg/dL. There were no serious adverse events or infectious complications reported.The study showed the Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System is one of the most accurate CGMs. The significant reduction in nocturnal time spent in a hypoglycemic state observed during this study suggests that a longer term study of CGM use, especially nocturnal use, could be beneficial for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness.

| S-EPMC4667335 | biostudies-literature

Continuous Glucose Sensor Survival and Accuracy Over 14 Consecutive Days.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4955929 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measurements in Normo-Glycemic Individuals.

Project description:The validity of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is well established in diabetic patients. CGM is also increasingly used for research purposes in normo-glycemic individuals, but the CGM validity in such individuals is unknown. We studied the accuracy of CGM measurements in normo-glycemic individuals by comparing CGM-derived versus venous blood-derived glucose levels and measures of glycemia and glycemic variability.In 34 healthy participants (mean age 65.7 years), glucose was simultaneously measured every 10 minutes, via both an Enlite® CGM sensor, and in venous blood sampled over a 24-hour period. Validity of CGM-derived individual glucose measurements, calculated measures of glycemia over daytime (09:00h-23:00h) and nighttime (23:00h-09:00h), and calculated measures of glycemic variability (e.g. 24h standard deviation [SD]) were assessed by Pearson correlation coefficients, mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and paired t-tests.The median correlation coefficient between CGM and venous glucose measurements per participant was 0.68 (interquartile range: 0.40-0.78), and the MARD was 17.6% (SD = 17%). Compared with venous sampling, the calculated measure of glycemia during daytime was 0.22 mmol/L higher when derived from CGM, but no difference was observed during nighttime. Most measures of glycemic variability were lower with CGM than with venous blood sampling (e.g., 24h SD: 1.07 with CGM and 1.26 with venous blood; p-value = 0.004).In normo-glycemic individuals, CGM-derived glucose measurements had good agreement with venous glucose levels. However, the measure of glycemia was higher during the day and most measures of glycemic variability were lower when derived from CGM.

| S-EPMC4596806 | biostudies-literature

Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundThe level of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) accuracy needed for insulin dosing using sensor values (i.e., the level of accuracy permitting non-adjunct CGM use) is a topic of ongoing debate. Assessment of this level in clinical experiments is virtually impossible because the magnitude of CGM errors cannot be manipulated and related prospectively to clinical outcomes.Materials and methodsA combination of archival data (parallel CGM, insulin pump, self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] records, and meals for 56 pump users with type 1 diabetes) and in silico experiments was used to "replay" real-life treatment scenarios and relate sensor error to glycemic outcomes. Nominal blood glucose (BG) traces were extracted using a mathematical model, yielding 2,082 BG segments each initiated by insulin bolus and confirmed by SMBG. These segments were replayed at seven sensor accuracy levels (mean absolute relative differences [MARDs] of 3-22%) testing six scenarios: insulin dosing using sensor values, threshold, and predictive alarms, each without or with considering CGM trend arrows.ResultsIn all six scenarios, the occurrence of hypoglycemia (frequency of BG levels ≤50 mg/dL and BG levels ≤39 mg/dL) increased with sensor error, displaying an abrupt slope change at MARD =10%. Similarly, hyperglycemia (frequency of BG levels ≥250 mg/dL and BG levels ≥400 mg/dL) increased and displayed an abrupt slope change at MARD=10%. When added to insulin dosing decisions, information from CGM trend arrows, threshold, and predictive alarms resulted in improvement in average glycemia by 1.86, 8.17, and 8.88 mg/dL, respectively.ConclusionsUsing CGM for insulin dosing decisions is feasible below a certain level of sensor error, estimated in silico at MARD=10%. In our experiments, further accuracy improvement did not contribute substantively to better glycemic outcomes.

| S-EPMC4346608 | biostudies-literature

Clinical accuracy of a continuous glucose monitoring system with an advanced algorithm.

Project description:We assessed the performance of a modified Dexcom G4 Platinum system with an advanced algorithm, in comparison with frequent venous samples measured on a laboratory reference (YSI) during a clinic session and in comparison to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) during home use. Fifty-one subjects with diabetes were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. Subjects wore 1 sensor for 7-day use and participated in one 12-hour in-clinic session on day 1, 4, or 7 to collect YSI reference venous glucose every 15 minutes and capillary SMBG test every 30 minutes. Carbohydrate consumption and insulin dosing and timing were manipulated to obtain data in low and high glucose ranges. In comparison with the laboratory reference method (n = 2,263) the system provided a mean and median absolute relative differences (ARD) of 9.0% and 7.0%, respectively. The mean absolute difference for CGM was 6.4 mg/dL when the YSIs were within hypoglycemia ranges (? 70 mg/dL). The percentage in the clinically accurate Clarke error grid A zone was 92.4% and in the benign error B zone was 7.1%. Majority of the sensors (73%) had an aggregated MARD in reference to YSI ? 10%. The MARD of CGM-SMBG for home use was 11.3%. The study showed that the point and rate accuracy, clinical accuracy, reliability, and consistency over the duration of wear and across glycemic ranges were superior to current commercial real-time CGM systems. The performance of this CGM is reaching that of a self-monitoring blood glucose meter in real use environment.

| S-EPMC4604574 | biostudies-literature

Evaluating the accuracy and large inaccuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study evaluated the accuracy and large inaccuracy of the Freestyle Navigator (FSN) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) and Dexcom SEVEN PLUS (DSP) (Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems during closed-loop studies.Research design and methodsPaired CGM and plasma glucose values (7,182 data pairs) were collected, every 15-60?min, from 32 adults (36.2±9.3 years) and 20 adolescents (15.3±1.5 years) with type 1 diabetes who participated in closed-loop studies. Levels 1, 2, and 3 of large sensor error with increasing severity were defined according to absolute relative deviation greater than or equal to ±40%, ±50%, and ±60% at a reference glucose level of ?6 mmol/L or absolute deviation greater than or equal to ±2.4 mmol/L,±3.0 mmol/L, and ±3.6 mmol/L at a reference glucose level of <6 mmol/L.ResultsMedian absolute relative deviation was 9.9% for FSN and 12.6% for DSP. Proportions of data points in Zones A and B of Clarke error grid analysis were similar (96.4% for FSN vs. 97.8% for DSP). Large sensor over-reading, which increases risk of insulin over-delivery and hypoglycemia, occurred two- to threefold more frequently with DSP than FSN (once every 2.5, 4.6, and 10.7 days of FSN use vs. 1.2, 2.0, and 3.7 days of DSP use for Level 1-3 errors, respectively). At levels 2 and 3, large sensor errors lasting 1?h or longer were absent with FSN but persisted with DSP.ConclusionsFSN and DSP differ substantially in the frequency and duration of large inaccuracy despite only modest differences in conventional measures of numerical and clinical accuracy. Further evaluations are required to confirm that FSN is more suitable for integration into closed-loop delivery systems.

| S-EPMC3558677 | biostudies-literature

Continuous glucose monitoring.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10699474 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes.

Project description:Background: We evaluated the accuracy and safety of a seventh generation (G7) Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during 10.5 days of use in adults with diabetes. Methods: Adults with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (on intensive insulin therapy or not) participated at 12 investigational sites in the United States. In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and on the second half of day 10 or the first half of day 11 for frequent comparisons with comparator blood glucose measurements obtained with the YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. Participants wore sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen. Accuracy evaluation included the proportion of CGM values within 15% of comparator glucose levels >100 mg/dL or within 15 mg/dL of comparator levels ≤100 mg/dL (%15/15), along with the %20/20 and %30/30 agreement rates. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between temporally matched CGM and comparator values was also calculated. Results: Data from 316 participants (619 sensors, 77,774 matched pairs) were analyzed. For arm- and abdomen-placed sensors, overall MARDs were 8.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 89.6%, 95.3%, and 98.8% for arm-placed sensors and were 85.5%, 93.2%, and 98.1% for abdomen-placed sensors. Across days of wear, glucose concentration ranges, and rates of change, %20/20 agreement rates varied by no more than 9% from the overall %20/20. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The G7 CGM provides accurate glucose readings with single-digit MARD with arm or abdomen placement in adults with diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04794478.

| S-EPMC9208857 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients After Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation.

Project description:BackgroundAmong postsurgical and critically ill patients, malglycemia is associated with increased complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the inpatient population may enhance glycemic control. CGM reliability may be compromised by postsurgical complications such as edema or vascular changes. We utilized Clarke Error Grid (CEG) and Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) analysis to evaluate CGM performance after total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation.Materials and methodsThis subanalysis evaluated Medtronic Enlite 2 CGM values against YSI serum glucose in seven post-transplant patients (86% female; 38.6 ± 9.4 years) on artificial pancreas for 72 h at transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin. Sensor recalibration occurred for absolute relative difference (ARD) ≥20% x2, ≥30% x1, or by investigator discretion based on trend.ResultsSensor analysis showed mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 11.0% ± 11.5%. The sensors were recalibrated 8.3 times/day; active sensor was switched 1.4 times/day. Calibration factor was 7.692 ± 3.786 mg/nA·dL (target = 1.5-20 mg/nA·dL). CEG analysis showed 86.1% of pairs in Zone A (clinically accurate zone) and 99.4% of pairs in Zones A + B (low risk of error). SEG analysis of hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia risk showed 92.22% of pairs in the "no risk" zone, 5.96% of pairs in the "slight lower" risk zone, 1.01% of pairs in the "slight higher" risk zone, and only 0.81% of pairs in the "moderate lower" risk zone.ConclusionsOverall performance of the Medtronic Enlite 2 CGM in the post-transplant population was reasonably good with "no risk" or "slight lower" risk by SEG analysis and high CGM-YSI agreement by CEG analysis; however, frequent recalibrations were required in this intensive care population.

| S-EPMC4991614 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy and Safety of the 15-Day CareSens Air Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

Project description:Background: We evaluated the accuracy and safety of the CareSens Air, a novel real-time continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS), during 15 days of use in adults with diabetes. Methods: Adults with either type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy participated at four sites in South Korea. All participants wore the sensor for 15 days. Participants were scheduled for four 8-h clinic sessions on Day 1, 5 ± 1, 10 ± 1, and 15. Accuracy was evaluated based on the proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) values within 15% of YSI values ≥100 mg/dL or within 15 mg/dL of YSI values <100 mg/dL (%15/15), along with the %20/20, %30/30, and %40/40 agreement rates. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between the CGM and YSI values was calculated. Results: Data from 83 participants (83 sensors, 10,029 CGM-YSI matched pairs) were analyzed. The overall MARD was 10.42%, and the overall %15/15, %20/20, %30/30, and %40/40 accuracy were 78.55%, 89.04%, 96.47%, and 98.87%, respectively. The consensus error grid analysis showed that 99.92% of CGM values fell into Zone A or B (Zone A: 89.83%, Zone B: 10.09%). The %20/20 accuracy of CGMS was 88.11% on Day 1, 90.11% on Day 3-5, 92.09% on Day 8-10, and 85.63% on Day 15. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The CareSens Air demonstrated accurate performance across the wide glycemic range and was well tolerated during the 15-day sensor use period.

| S-EPMC10979678 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data