» Articles » PMID: 28585874

Stability, Accuracy, and Risk Assessment of a Novel Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor

Overview
Date 2017 Jun 7
PMID 28585874
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Users of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are concerned with the frequency of inserting and calibrating new sensors, with sensor accuracy and reliability throughout the sensor's functional life, and with the risks associated with inaccurate sensor readings.

Methods: A sensor for our next-generation CGM system was tested for accuracy by comparison with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values throughout 10 days of wear. Fifty subjects (49 with type 1 diabetes, 1 with type 2 diabetes, 20 male, mean ± standard deviation [SD] age 32.5 ± 18.7 years) enrolled. Subjects wore one sensor each, calibrated it once per day, and obtained multiple daily SMBG values for comparison. A total of 2739 paired CGM-SMBG values were analyzed to arrive at standard accuracy statistics and plotted on the surveillance error grid (SEG) to estimate the risk of SMBG-CGM discrepancies.

Results: The overall mean and median absolute relative difference (ARD) values were 9.6% and 7.2%, respectively. The median ARD values ranged from 8.9% on Day 1 to 6.5% on Day 10. SEG analysis categorized 2727 points (99.6%) as "no" or "slight" risk and 12 points (0.4%) as "moderate" or "great" risk. Thirty-nine (79.6%) of the 49 systems worked through the end of Day 10. Sensors and adhesives were well tolerated, with minimal erythema and induration.

Conclusions: This new CGM system's accuracy throughout its 10-day functional life, the convenience associated with once-daily calibrations, and the high proportion of measurements in the "no risk" zone of the SEG support its nonadjunctive use in diabetes management and closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

Citing Articles

Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.

Freckmann G, Eichenlaub M, Waldenmaier D, Pleus S, Wehrstedt S, Haug C J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023; 17(6):1506-1526.

PMID: 37599389 PMC: 10658695. DOI: 10.1177/19322968231190941.


Cutaneous Complications With Continuous or Flash Glucose Monitoring Use: Systematic Review of Trials and Observational Studies.

Asarani N, Reynolds A, Boucher S, de Bock M, Wheeler B J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019; 14(2):328-337.

PMID: 31452386 PMC: 7196864. DOI: 10.1177/1932296819870849.


Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

Smith A, Shinkins B, Hall P, Hulme C, Messenger M Clin Chem. 2019; 65(11):1363-1374.

PMID: 31444309 PMC: 7055686. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.300954.


The Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Garg S, Akturk H Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017; 19(S3):S1-S2.

PMID: 28585872 PMC: 5467094. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2017.0097.

References
1.
Massa G, Gys I, Op t Eyndt A, Bevilacqua E, Wijnands A, Declercq P . Evaluation of the FreeStyle® Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes. Horm Res Paediatr. 2018; 89(3):189-199. DOI: 10.1159/000487361. View

2.
Fonseca V, Grunberger G, Anhalt H, Bailey T, Blevins T, Garg S . CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING: A CONSENSUS CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY. Endocr Pract. 2016; 22(8):1008-21. DOI: 10.4158/EP161392.CS. View

3.
Kovatchev B, Wakeman C, Breton M, Kost G, Louie R, Tran N . Computing the surveillance error grid analysis: procedure and examples. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015; 8(4):673-84. PMC: 4764239. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814539590. View

4.
Miller K, Foster N, Beck R, Bergenstal R, DuBose S, DiMeglio L . Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38(6):971-8. DOI: 10.2337/dc15-0078. View

5.
Acciaroli G, Vettoretti M, Facchinetti A, Sparacino G, Cobelli C . From Two to One Per Day Calibration of Dexcom G4 Platinum by a Time-Varying Day-Specific Bayesian Prior. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016; 18(8):472-9. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0088. View