Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

23 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have transformed ambulatory diabetes management. Until recently, inpatient use of CGM has remained investigational, with limited data on its accuracy in the hospital setting.

Research design and methods

To analyze the accuracy of Dexcom G6, we compared retrospective matched-pair CGM and capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose data from three inpatient CGM studies (two interventional and one observational) in general medicine and surgery patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD), and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of POC reference values for blood glucose >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.

Results

A total of 218 patients were included (96% with type 2 diabetes) with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12 years. The overall MARD (n = 4,067 matched glucose pairs) was 12.8%, and median ARD was 10.1% (interquartile range 4.6, 17.6]. The proportions of readings meeting % 15/15, % 20/20, and % 30/30 criteria were 68.7, 81.7, and 93.8%, respectively. CEG analysis showed 98.7% of all values in zones A and B. MARD and median ARD were higher in the case of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and severe anemia (hemoglobin <7 g/dL).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use and may help improve glucose monitoring in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Davis GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8323182 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Performance of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Pregnant Women with Diabetes.

Project description:Background: The aim of this study was to determine the performance of the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system across three sensor wear sites in pregnant women with diabetes in the second or third trimesters. Methods: Participants with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes mellitus were enrolled at three sites. Each wore two G6 sensors on the abdomen, upper buttock, and/or posterior upper arm for 10 days and underwent a 6-h clinic session between days 3 and 7 of sensor wear, during which YSI reference blood glucose values were obtained every 30?min. No intentional glucose manipulations were performed. Accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values that were within ±20% of paired reference values >100?mg/dL or ±20?mg/dL of YSI values ?100?mg/dL (hereafter referred to as %20/20), as well as the analogous %15/15, %30/30, and %40/40. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM-YSI pairs was also calculated. Results: Thirty-two participants with T1D (n?=?20), T2D (n?=?3), or GDM (n?=?9) were enrolled: 19 were in the second trimester and 13 were in the third trimester of pregnancy. Compared with the reference, 92.5% of CGM values were within ±20%/20?mg/dL. The overall MARD and that of sensors worn on the abdomen, upper buttock, and posterior upper arm was 10.3%, 11.5%, 11.2%, and 8.7%, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events. Skin reactions at the insertion sites were absent or minor. Conclusions: The Dexcom G6 CGM system is accurate and safe in pregnant women with diabetes.

| S-EPMC7757524 | 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

Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia.

Project description:IntroductionReal-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) allows patients with diabetes to adjust insulin dosing, potentially improving glucose control. This study aimed to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 rt-CGM device versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in Australia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).MethodsLong-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data for the analysis of rt-CGM versus SMBG and FGM were sourced from the DIAMOND study and a network meta-analysis, respectively. Rt-CGM and FGM were associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits due to reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (FoH) and fingerstick testing. Analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon from an Australian healthcare payer perspective, including direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum.ResultsRt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.199 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 21,596 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 18,020 per QALY gained compared with SMBG. Compared with FGM, rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.569 QALYs, increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 11,064 and an ICER of AUD 19,455 per QALY gained. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA1c benefits and QoL benefits associated with reduced FoH and fingerstick testing.ConclusionsDue to improved clinical outcomes and QoL gains rt-CGM is highly cost-effective compared with SMBG and FGM in people with T1D in Australia.

| S-EPMC9310589 | biostudies-literature

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

Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Glucose Sensor during Aerobic, Resistance, and Interval Exercise in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Project description:The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors may be significantly impacted by exercise. We evaluated the impact of three different types of exercise on the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 sensor. Twenty-four adults with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections wore a G6 sensor. Participants were randomized to aerobic, resistance, or high intensity interval training (HIIT) exercise. Each participant completed two in-clinic 30-min exercise sessions. The sensors were applied on average 5.3 days prior to the in-clinic visits (range 0.6-9.9). Capillary blood glucose (CBG) measurements with a Contour Next meter were performed before and after exercise as well as every 10 min during exercise. No CGM calibrations were performed. The median absolute relative difference (MARD) and median relative difference (MRD) of the CGM as compared with the reference CBG did not differ significantly from the start of exercise to the end exercise across all exercise types (ranges for aerobic MARD: 8.9 to 13.9% and MRD: -6.4 to 0.5%, resistance MARD: 7.7 to 14.5% and MRD: -8.3 to -2.9%, HIIT MARD: 12.1 to 16.8% and MRD: -14.3 to -9.1%). The accuracy of the no-calibration Dexcom G6 CGM was not significantly impacted by aerobic, resistance, or HIIT exercise.

| S-EPMC7600074 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: improved sensor performance with enhanced calibrations.

Project description:ObjectiveAccurate real-time continuous glucose measurements may improve glucose control in the critical care unit. We evaluated the accuracy of the FreeStyle(®) Navigator(®) (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device in critically ill adults using two methods of calibration.Subjects and methodsIn a randomized trial, paired CGM and reference glucose (hourly arterial blood glucose [ABG]) were collected over a 48-h period from 24 adults with critical illness (mean±SD age, 60±14 years; mean±SD body mass index, 29.6±9.3?kg/m(2); mean±SD Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 12±4 [range, 6-19]) and hyperglycemia. In 12 subjects, the CGM device was calibrated at variable intervals of 1-6?h using ABG. In the other 12 subjects, the sensor was calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions (1, 2, 10, and 24?h) using arterial blood and the built-in point-of-care glucometer.ResultsIn total, 1,060 CGM-ABG pairs were analyzed over the glucose range from 4.3 to 18.8?mmol/L. Using enhanced calibration median (interquartile range) every 169 (122-213) min, the absolute relative deviation was lower (7.0% [3.5, 13.0] vs. 12.8% [6.3, 21.8], P<0.001), and the percentage of points in the Clarke error grid Zone A was higher (87.8% vs. 70.2%).ConclusionsAccuracy of the Navigator CGM device during critical illness was comparable to that observed in non-critical care settings. Further significant improvements in accuracy may be obtained by frequent calibrations with ABG measurements.

| S-EPMC3894676 | biostudies-literature

Blood glucose and subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill horses: A pilot study.

Project description:This pilot prospective study reports the feasibility, management and cost of the use of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system in critically ill adult horses and foals. We compared the glucose measurements obtained by the CGM device with blood glucose (BG) concentrations. Neonatal foals (0-2 weeks of age) and adult horses (> 1 year old) admitted in the period of March-May 2016 with clinical and laboratory parameters compatible with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) were included. Glucose concentration was monitored every 4 hours on blood samples with a point-of-care (POC) glucometer and with a blood gas analyzer. A CGM system was also placed on six adults and four foals but recordings were successfully obtained only in four adults and one foal. Glucose concentrations corresponded fairly well between BG and CGM, however, there appeared to be a lag time for interstitial glucose levels. Fluctuations of glucose in the interstitial fluid did not always follow the same trend as BG. CGM identified peaks and drops that would have been missed with conventional glucose monitoring. The use of CGM system is feasible in ill horses and may provide clinically relevant information on glucose levels, but there are several challenges that need to be resolved for the system to gain more widespread usability.

| S-EPMC7904136 | biostudies-literature

Determinants of the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in non-critically ill patients with heart failure or severe hyperglycemia.

Project description:BackgroundThe accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with heart failure or severe hyperglycemia (SH) is unknown.MethodsHospitalized patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) exacerbation (receiving IV or subcutaneous insulin) or SH requiring insulin infusion were compared to outpatients referred for retrospective CGM.ResultsForty-three patients with CHF, 15 patients with SH, and 88 outpatients yielded 470, 164, and 2150 meter-sensor pairs, respectively. Admission glucose differed (188 versus 509 mg/dl in CHF and SH, p < .001) but not the first sensor glucose (p = .35). In continuous glucose error grid analysis, 67-78% of pairs during hypoglycemia were in zones A+B (p = .63), compared with 98-100% in euglycemia (p < .001) and 98%, 92%, and 99% (p = .001) during hyperglycemia for the CHF, SH, and outpatient groups, respectively. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was lower in the CHF versus the SH group in glucose strata above 100 mg/dl, but there was no difference between the CHF and outpatient groups. Linear regression models showed that CHF versus outpatient, SH versus CHF, and coefficient of variation were significant predictors of higher MARD. Among subjects with CHF, MARD was not associated with brain natriuretic peptide or change in plasma volume, but it was significantly higher in subjects randomized to IV insulin (p = .04).ConclusionsThe results suggest that SH and glycemic variability are more important determinants of CGM accuracy than known CHF status alone in hospitalized patients.

| S-EPMC3440160 | biostudies-literature

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus conventional glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a systematic review study protocol.

Project description:IntroductionStress-induced hyperglycaemia, which has been shown to be associated with an unfavourable prognosis, is common among critically ill patients. Additionally, it has been reported that hypoglycaemia and high glucose variabilities are also associated with adverse outcomes. Thus, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may be the optimal method to detect severe hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia and decrease glucose excursion. However, the overall accuracy and reliability of CGM systems and the effects of CGM systems on glucose control and prognosis in critically ill patients remain inconclusive. Therefore, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the associations between CGM systems and clinical outcome.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2014. Studies comparing CGM systems with any other glucose monitoring methods in critically ill patients will be eligible for our meta-analysis. The primary endpoints include the incidence of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, mean glucose level, and percentage of time within the target range. The second endpoints include intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and the Pearson correlation coefficient and the results of error grid analysis. In addition, we will record all complications (eg, acquired infections) in control and intervention groups and local adverse events in intervention groups (eg, bleeding or infections).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42014013488.

| S-EPMC4305078 | biostudies-literature

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized trial.

Project description:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control and risk of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total 124 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to the real-time CGM group (n = 63; glucose values given every 5 min) or to the control group (n = 61; selective arterial glucose measurements according to an algorithm; simultaneously blinded CGM) for 72 h. Insulin infusion rates were guided according to the same algorithm in both groups. The primary end point was percentage of time at a glucose level <110 mg/dl. Secondary end points were mean glucose levels and rate of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl). RESULTS Percentage of time at a glucose level <110 mg/dl (59.0 +/- 20 vs. 55.0 +/- 18% in the control group, P = 0.245) and the mean glucose level (106 +/- 18 vs. 111 +/- 10 mg/dl in the control group, P = 0.076) could not be improved using real-time CGM. The rate of severe hypoglycemia was lower in the real-time CGM group (1.6 vs. 11.5% in the control group, P = 0.031). CGM reduced the absolute risk of severe hypoglycemia by 9.9% (95% CI 1.2-18.6) with a number needed to treat of 10.1 (95% CI 5.4-83.3). CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients, real-time CGM reduces hypoglycemic events but does not improve glycemic control compared with intensive insulin therapy guided by an algorithm.

| S-EPMC2827490 | 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