BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool widely used in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether accuracy and patient treatment satisfaction differ between the Enlite™ (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA) and Dexcom(®) (San Diego, CA) G4 PLATINUM CGM sensors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes used the Dexcom G4 and Enlite sensors simultaneously for a minimum of 4 and maximum of 6 days. Patients measured capillary glucose levels with a HemoCue(®) (Ängelholm, Sweden) system six to 10 times a day. In addition, two inpatient studies were performed between Days 1-3 and 4-6. RESULTS: The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) in blood glucose for the Dexcom G4 was significantly lower (13.9%) than for the Enlite sensor (17.8%) (P<0.0001). The corresponding MARDs for Days 1-3 were 15.0% versus 19.4% (P=0.0027) and 13.6% versus 15.9% (P=0.026) for Days 4-6. For glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range (<4.0 mmol/L), the MARD for the Dexcom G4 was 20.0% compared with 34.7% for the Enlite (P=0.0041). On a visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100), patients rated the Dexcom G4 more favorably than the Enlite in 12 out of the 13 user experience questions. For example, more patients rated their experience with the Dexcom G4 as positive (VAS, 79.7 vs. 46.6; P<0.0001) and preferred to use it in their daily lives (VAS, 79.1 vs. 42.1; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Dexcom G4 sensor was associated with greater overall accuracy than the Enlite sensor during initial (Days 1-3) and later (Days 4-6) use and for glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range. Patients reported a significantly more positive experience using the Dexcom G4 than the Enlite.
BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool widely used in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether accuracy and patient treatment satisfaction differ between the Enlite™ (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA) and Dexcom(®) (San Diego, CA) G4 PLATINUM CGM sensors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes used the Dexcom G4 and Enlite sensors simultaneously for a minimum of 4 and maximum of 6 days. Patients measured capillary glucose levels with a HemoCue(®) (Ängelholm, Sweden) system six to 10 times a day. In addition, two inpatient studies were performed between Days 1-3 and 4-6. RESULTS: The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) in blood glucose for the Dexcom G4 was significantly lower (13.9%) than for the Enlite sensor (17.8%) (P<0.0001). The corresponding MARDs for Days 1-3 were 15.0% versus 19.4% (P=0.0027) and 13.6% versus 15.9% (P=0.026) for Days 4-6. For glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range (<4.0 mmol/L), the MARD for the Dexcom G4 was 20.0% compared with 34.7% for the Enlite (P=0.0041). On a visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100), patients rated the Dexcom G4 more favorably than the Enlite in 12 out of the 13 user experience questions. For example, more patients rated their experience with the Dexcom G4 as positive (VAS, 79.7 vs. 46.6; P<0.0001) and preferred to use it in their daily lives (VAS, 79.1 vs. 42.1; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Dexcom G4 sensor was associated with greater overall accuracy than the Enlite sensor during initial (Days 1-3) and later (Days 4-6) use and for glucose levels in the hypoglycemic range. Patients reported a significantly more positive experience using the Dexcom G4 than the Enlite.
Authors: David M Nathan; Patricia A Cleary; Jye-Yu C Backlund; Saul M Genuth; John M Lachin; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Raskin; Bernard Zinman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas C Blevins; Bruce W Bode; Satish K Garg; George Grunberger; Irl B Hirsch; Lois Jovanovič; Elizabeth Nardacci; Eric A Orzeck; Victor L Roberts; William V Tamborlane; Caitlin Rothermel Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: S P Laing; A J Swerdlow; S D Slater; J L Botha; A C Burden; N R Waugh; A W Smith; R D Hill; P J Bingley; C C Patterson; Z Qiao; H Keen Journal: Diabet Med Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; William V Tamborlane; Andrew Ahmann; John B Buse; George Dailey; Stephen N Davis; Carol Joyce; Tim Peoples; Bruce A Perkins; John B Welsh; Steven M Willi; Michael A Wood Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rikke Borg; Judith C Kuenen; Bendix Carstensen; Hui Zheng; David M Nathan; Robert J Heine; Jorn Nerup; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Daniel R Witte Journal: Diabetes Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Roy W Beck; Bruce Buckingham; Kellee Miller; Howard Wolpert; Dongyuan Xing; Jennifer M Block; H Peter Chase; Irl Hirsch; Craig Kollman; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Kerry Milaszewski; Katrina J Ruedy; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 19.112