Literature DB >> 24876423

A comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors: the Navigator, G4 Platinum, and Enlite.

Edward R Damiano1, Katherine McKeon1, Firas H El-Khatib1, Hui Zheng2, David M Nathan3, Steven J Russell4.   

Abstract

The effectiveness and safety of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) is dependent on their accuracy and reliability. The objective of this study was to compare 3 CGMs in adult and pediatric subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood-glucose (BG) control. Twenty-four subjects (12 adults) with type 1 diabetes each participated in one 48-hour closed-loop BG control experiment. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements obtained every 15 minutes (4657 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from 3 CGMs (FreeStyle Navigator, Abbott Diabetes Care; G4 Platinum, Dexcom; Enlite, Medtronic) worn simultaneously by each subject. The Navigator and G4 Platinum (G4) had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 12.3 ± 12.1% and 10.8 ± 9.9%, respectively. Both had lower MARDs of all paired points than Enlite (17.9 ± 15.8%, P < .005). Very large errors (MARD > 50%) were less common with the G4 (0.5%) than with the Enlite (4.3%, P = .0001) while the number of very large errors with the Navigator (1.4%) was intermediate between the G4 and Enlite (P = .1 and P = .06, respectively). The average MARD for experiments in adolescent subjects were lower than in adult subjects for the Navigator and G4, while there was no difference for Enlite. All 3 devices had similar reliability. A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of 3 CGMs revealed marked differences in both accuracy and precision. The Navigator and G4 were found to outperform the Enlite in these areas.
© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CGM; accuracy; blood glucose; blood glucose meter; continuous glucose monitoring; reliability

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24876423      PMCID: PMC4764229          DOI: 10.1177/1932296814532203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  6 in total

1.  Performance evaluation of three continuous glucose monitoring systems: comparison of six sensors per subject in parallel.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Eva Zschornack; Hans-Martin Klötzer; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-07-01

2.  Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison.

Authors:  Yoeri M Luijf; Julia K Mader; Werner Doll; Thomas Pieber; Anne Farret; Jerome Place; Eric Renard; Daniela Bruttomesso; Alessio Filippi; Angelo Avogaro; Sabine Arnolds; Carsten Benesch; Lutz Heinemann; J Hans DeVries
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 3.  Biomechanics of the sensor-tissue interface-effects of motion, pressure, and design on sensor performance and foreign body response-part II: examples and application.

Authors:  Kristen L Helton; Buddy D Ratner; Natalie A Wisniewski
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-05-01

4.  A comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors.

Authors:  Edward R Damiano; Firas H El-Khatib; Hui Zheng; David M Nathan; Steven J Russell
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  The accuracy benefit of multiple amperometric glucose sensors in people with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Jessica R Castle; Amy Pitts; Kathryn Hanavan; Rhonda Muhly; Joseph El Youssef; Colleen Hughes-Karvetski; Boris Kovatchev; W Kenneth Ward
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Blood glucose control in type 1 diabetes with a bihormonal bionic endocrine pancreas.

Authors:  Steven J Russell; Firas H El-Khatib; David M Nathan; Kendra L Magyar; John Jiang; Edward R Damiano
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 19.112

  6 in total
  56 in total

1.  Performance Comparison of CGM Systems: MARD Values Are Not Always a Reliable Indicator of CGM System Accuracy.

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

2.  Assessing the Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Calibrated With Capillary Values Using Capillary or Venous Glucose Levels as a Reference.

Authors:  Mervi Andelin; Jort Kropff; Viktorija Matuleviciene; Jeffrey I Joseph; Stig Attvall; Elvar Theodorsson; Irl B Hirsch; Henrik Imberg; Sofia Dahlqvist; David Klonoff; Börje Haraldsson; J Hans DeVries; Marcus Lind
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-28

3.  Autoregressive Modeling of Drift and Random Error to Characterize a Continuous Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Sensor.

Authors:  Tony Zhou; Jennifer L Dickson; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-07-14

4.  How to Assess the Quality of Glucose Clamps? Evaluation of Clamps Performed With ClampArt, a Novel Automated Clamp Device.

Authors:  Carsten Benesch; Tim Heise; Oliver Klein; Lutz Heinemann; Sabine Arnolds
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-04-07

5.  Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Michael Schoemaker; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Rolf Hinzmann; Adham Kassab; Guido Freckmann; Florian Reiterer; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-19

6.  Insulin Infusion Sets and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors: Where the Artificial Pancreas Meets the Patient.

Authors:  Gregory P Forlenza
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  Accuracy and reliability of a subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring device in critically ill patients.

Authors:  S Rijkenberg; S C van Steen; J H DeVries; P H J van der Voort
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 2.502

8.  Combining glucose monitoring and insulin delivery into a single device: current progress and ongoing challenges of the artificial pancreas.

Authors:  Kathleen H Ang; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Deliv       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 6.648

9.  Interrupting prolonged sitting in type 2 diabetes: nocturnal persistence of improved glycaemic control.

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

10.  Redundancy in Glucose Sensing: Enhanced Accuracy and Reliability of an Electrochemical Redundant Sensor for Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Amin Sharifi; Andrea Varsavsky; Johanna Ulloa; Jodie C Horsburgh; Sybil A McAuley; Balasubramanian Krishnamurthy; Alicia J Jenkins; Peter G Colman; Glenn M Ward; Richard J MacIsaac; Rajiv Shah; David N O'Neal
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-05-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.