» Articles » PMID: 29901421

Accuracy of a Factory-Calibrated, Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System During 10 Days of Use in Youth and Adults with Diabetes

Overview
Date 2018 Jun 15
PMID 29901421
Citations 85
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Frequent use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is associated with improved glycemic outcomes in persons with diabetes, but the need for calibrations and sensor insertions are often barriers to adoption. In this study, we evaluated the performance of G6, a sixth-generation, factory-calibrated CGM system specified for 10-day wear.

Methods: The study enrolled participants of ages 6 years and up with type 1 diabetes or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes at 11 sites in the United States. Participation involved one sensor wear period of up to 10 days. Adults wore the system on the abdomen; youth of ages 6-17 years could choose to wear it on the abdomen or upper buttocks. Clinic sessions for frequent comparison with reference blood glucose measurements took place on days 1, 4-5, 7, and/or 10. Participants of ages 13 years and up underwent purposeful supervised glucose manipulation during in-clinic sessions. During the study, participants calibrated the systems once daily. However, analysis was performed on glucose values that were derived from reprocessed raw sensor data, independently of self-monitored blood glucose values used for calibration. Reprocessing used assigned sensor codes and a factory-calibration algorithm. Performance evaluation included the proportion of CGM values that were within ±20% of reference glucose values >100 mg/dL or within ±20 mg/dL of reference glucose values ≤100 mg/dL (%20/20), the analogous %15/15, and the mean absolute relative difference (MARD, expressed as a percentage) between temporally matched CGM and reference values.

Results: Data from 262 study participants (21,569 matched CGM reference pairs) were analyzed. The overall %15/15, %20/20, and MARD were 82.4%, 92.3%, and 10.0%, respectively. Matched pairs from 134 adults and 128 youth of ages 6-17 years were similar with respect to %20/20 (92.4% and 91.9%) and MARD (9.9% and 10.1%). Overall %20/20 values on days 1 and 10 of sensor wear were 88.6% and 90.6%, respectively. The system's "Urgent Low Soon" (predictive of hypoglycemia within 20 min) hypoglycemia alert was correctly provided 84% of the time within 30 min before impending biochemical hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL). The 10-day sensor survival rate was 87%.

Conclusion: The new factory-calibrated G6 real-time CGM system provides accurate readings for 10 days and removes several clinical barriers to broader CGM adoption.

Citing Articles

Feasibility of a Glucose Manipulation Procedure for the Standardized Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Link M, Eichenlaub M, Waldenmaier D, Wehrstedt S, Pleus S, Jendrike N J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025; :19322968251317526.

PMID: 39989334 PMC: 11848859. DOI: 10.1177/19322968251317526.


Assessing Dynamic Cognitive Function in the Daily Lives of Youths With and Without Type 1 Diabetes: Usability Study.

Ray M, Fleming J, Aschenbrenner A, Hassenstab J, Redwine B, Burns C JMIR Form Res. 2025; 9:e60275.

PMID: 39935012 PMC: 11835789. DOI: 10.2196/60275.


International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024 Diabetes Technologies: Glucose Monitoring.

Tauschman M, Cardona-Hernandez R, DeSalvo D, Hood K, Laptev D, Lindholm Olinder A Horm Res Paediatr. 2025; 97(6):615-635.

PMID: 39884260 PMC: 11854985. DOI: 10.1159/000543156.


Are standardized conditions needed for correct CGM data interpretation in subjects at early stages of glucose intolerance?.

Dimova R, Chakarova N, Tankova T Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2025; 17(1):29.

PMID: 39844273 PMC: 11899435. DOI: 10.1186/s13098-025-01579-x.


Continuous Glucose Monitoring-New Diagnostic Tool in Complex Pathophysiological Disorder of Glucose Metabolism in Children and Adolescents with Obesity.

Simunovic M, Kumric M, Rusic D, Paradzik Simunovic M, Bozic J Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 14(24.

PMID: 39767162 PMC: 11674695. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14242801.


References
1.
Beck R, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, Ahmann A, Bergenstal R, Haller S . Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 317(4):371-378. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.19975. View

2.
Hoss U, Budiman E . Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Sensors: The Science Behind the Technology. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017; 19(S2):S44-S50. PMC: 5444502. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2017.0025. View

3.
Beck R, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, Ahmann A, Haller S, Kruger D . Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167(6):365-374. DOI: 10.7326/M16-2855. View

4.
Freckmann G, Schmid C, Pleus S, Baumstark A, Link M, Stolberg E . System accuracy evaluation of systems for point-of-care testing of blood glucose: a comparison of a patient-use system with six professional-use systems. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014; 52(7):1079-86. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2013-0976. View

5.
Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, Pleus S, Link M, Haug C . System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012; 6(5):1060-75. PMC: 3570840. DOI: 10.1177/193229681200600510. View