OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance and acceptability of the Enlite(®) glucose sensor (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes wore two Enlite sensors on the abdomen and/or buttock for 6 days and calibrated them at different frequencies. On Days 1, 3, and 6, accuracy was evaluated by comparison of sensor glucose values with frequently sampled plasma glucose values collected over a 12-h period. Accuracy was assessed at different reference glucose concentrations and during times when absolute glucose concentration rates of change were <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min. The sensor's ability to detect hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was evaluated with simulated alerts. Subject satisfaction was evaluated with a 7-point Likert-type questionnaire, with a score of 7 indicating strong agreement. RESULTS: With abdomen sensors under actual-use calibration (mean, 2.8 ± 0.9 times/day), the overall mean (median) absolute relative difference (ARD) values between sensor and reference values were 13.6% (10.1%); the corresponding buttock sensor ARD values were 15.5% (10.5%). With abdomen sensors under minimal calibration (mean, 1.2 ± 0.9 times/day), the mean (median) ARD values were 14.7% (10.8%). Mean ARD values of abdomen sensors at rates of change of <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min were 13.6%, 12.9%, and 16.3%, respectively. With abdomen sensors, 79.5% and 94.1% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, respectively, were correctly detected; 81.9% and 94.9% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic alerts, respectively, were confirmed. The failure rates for abdomen and buttock sensors were 19.7% and 13.9%, respectively. Mean responses to survey questions for all subjects related to comfort and ease of use were favorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite sensor provided accurate data at different glucose concentrations and rates of change. Subjects found the sensor comfortable and easy to use.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance and acceptability of the Enlite(®) glucose sensor (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes wore two Enlite sensors on the abdomen and/or buttock for 6 days and calibrated them at different frequencies. On Days 1, 3, and 6, accuracy was evaluated by comparison of sensor glucose values with frequently sampled plasma glucose values collected over a 12-h period. Accuracy was assessed at different reference glucose concentrations and during times when absolute glucose concentration rates of change were <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min. The sensor's ability to detect hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was evaluated with simulated alerts. Subject satisfaction was evaluated with a 7-point Likert-type questionnaire, with a score of 7 indicating strong agreement. RESULTS: With abdomen sensors under actual-use calibration (mean, 2.8 ± 0.9 times/day), the overall mean (median) absolute relative difference (ARD) values between sensor and reference values were 13.6% (10.1%); the corresponding buttock sensor ARD values were 15.5% (10.5%). With abdomen sensors under minimal calibration (mean, 1.2 ± 0.9 times/day), the mean (median) ARD values were 14.7% (10.8%). Mean ARD values of abdomen sensors at rates of change of <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min were 13.6%, 12.9%, and 16.3%, respectively. With abdomen sensors, 79.5% and 94.1% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, respectively, were correctly detected; 81.9% and 94.9% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic alerts, respectively, were confirmed. The failure rates for abdomen and buttock sensors were 19.7% and 13.9%, respectively. Mean responses to survey questions for all subjects related to comfort and ease of use were favorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite sensor provided accurate data at different glucose concentrations and rates of change. Subjects found the sensor comfortable and easy to use.
Authors: Harald Kirchsteiger; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Volker Lodwig; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redeker; Michael Schoemaker; Luigi Del Re Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-09-01
Authors: Florian Reiterer; Philipp Polterauer; Michael Schoemaker; Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Luigi Del Re Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-09-25
Authors: Paddy C Dempsey; Jennifer M Blankenship; Robyn N Larsen; Julian W Sacre; Parneet Sethi; Nora E Straznicky; Neale D Cohen; Ester Cerin; Gavin W Lambert; Neville Owen; Bronwyn A Kingwell; David W Dunstan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 10.122