» Articles » PMID: 25852074

Rate-of-Change Dependence of the Performance of Two CGM Systems During Induced Glucose Swings

Overview
Specialty Endocrinology
Date 2015 Apr 9
PMID 25852074
Citations 41
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is often assessed with respect to blood glucose (BG) readings. CGM readings are affected by a physiological and a technical time delay when compared to BG readings. In this analysis, the dependence of CGM performance parameters on the BG rate of change was investigated for 2 CGM systems.

Methods: Data from a previously published study were retrospectively analyzed. An established CGM system (Dexcom G4, Dexcom, San Diego, CA; system A) and a prototype system (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany; system B) with 2 sensors each were worn by 10 subjects in parallel. Glucose swings were induced to achieve rapidly changing BG concentrations. Mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were calculated in different BG rate-of-change categories. In addition, sensor-to-sensor precision was assessed.

Results: At BG rates of change of -1 mg/dl/min to 0 mg/dl/min and 0 mg/dl/min to +1 mg/dl/min, MARD results were 12.6% and 11.3% for system A and 8.2% and 10.0% for system B. At rapidly changing BG concentrations (<-3 mg/dl/min and ≥+3 mg/dl/min), higher MARD results were found for both systems, but system B was less affected (system A: 24.9% and 29.6%, system B: 10.6% and 16.3%). The impact of rate of change on sensor-to-sensor precision was less pronounced.

Conclusions: Both systems were affected by rapidly changing BG concentrations to some degree, although system B was mostly unaffected by decreasing BG concentrations. It would seem that technological advancements in CGM systems might allow for a more precise tracking of BG concentrations even at rapidly changing BG concentrations.

Citing Articles

Accuracy of a continuous glucose monitoring system applied before, during, and after an intense leg-squat session with low- and high-carbohydrate availability in young adults without diabetes.

Matzka M, Ortenblad N, Lenk M, Sperlich B Eur J Appl Physiol. 2024; 124(12):3557-3569.

PMID: 39037631 PMC: 11569006. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-024-05557-5.


Continuous glucose monitoring and intrapersonal variability in fasting glucose.

Shilo S, Keshet A, Rossman H, Godneva A, Talmor-Barkan Y, Aviv Y Nat Med. 2024; 30(5):1424-1431.

PMID: 38589602 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-02908-9.


Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring for personalized modeling of insulin-regulated glucose metabolism.

Erdos B, ODonovan S, Adriaens M, Gijbels A, Trouwborst I, Jardon K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):8037.

PMID: 38580749 PMC: 11371931. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-58703-6.


The Impact of Diabetes Education on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in SUS-Dependent Patients in a Northeastern Brazilian City.

Borges L, Jesus P, Souza J, Silva D, Moura P, Santos R Life (Basel). 2024; 14(3).

PMID: 38541647 PMC: 10971600. DOI: 10.3390/life14030320.


Accuracy of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitor in Pediatric Diabetic Ketoacidosis Admissions.

Waterman L, Pyle L, Forlenza G, Towers L, Karami A, Jost E Diabetes Technol Ther. 2024; 26(9):626-632.

PMID: 38441904 PMC: 11535449. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0542.


References
1.
Freckmann G, Pleus S, Link M, Zschornack E, Klotzer H, Haug C . Performance evaluation of three continuous glucose monitoring systems: comparison of six sensors per subject in parallel. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7(4):842-53. PMC: 3879748. DOI: 10.1177/193229681300700406. View

2.
Schmelzeisen-Redeker G, Staib A, Strasser M, Muller U, Schoemaker M . Overview of a novel sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7(4):808-14. PMC: 3879744. DOI: 10.1177/193229681300700402. View

3.
Halldorsdottir S, Warchal-Windham M, Wallace J, Pardo S, Parkes J, Simmons D . Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems: the North American comparator trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013; 7(5):1294-304. PMC: 3876374. DOI: 10.1177/193229681300700520. View

4.
Bailey T, Ahmann A, Brazg R, Christiansen M, Garg S, Watkins E . Accuracy and acceptability of the 6-day Enlite continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2014; 16(5):277-83. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2013.0222. View

5.
Basu A, Dube S, Veettil S, Slama M, Kudva Y, Peyser T . Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compartment in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014; 9(1):63-8. PMC: 4495531. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814554797. View