Literature DB >> 25436913

Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring.

Boris P Kovatchev1, Stephen D Patek, Edward Andrew Ortiz, Marc D Breton.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The level of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) accuracy needed for insulin dosing using sensor values (i.e., the level of accuracy permitting non-adjunct CGM use) is a topic of ongoing debate. Assessment of this level in clinical experiments is virtually impossible because the magnitude of CGM errors cannot be manipulated and related prospectively to clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A combination of archival data (parallel CGM, insulin pump, self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] records, and meals for 56 pump users with type 1 diabetes) and in silico experiments was used to "replay" real-life treatment scenarios and relate sensor error to glycemic outcomes. Nominal blood glucose (BG) traces were extracted using a mathematical model, yielding 2,082 BG segments each initiated by insulin bolus and confirmed by SMBG. These segments were replayed at seven sensor accuracy levels (mean absolute relative differences [MARDs] of 3-22%) testing six scenarios: insulin dosing using sensor values, threshold, and predictive alarms, each without or with considering CGM trend arrows.
RESULTS: In all six scenarios, the occurrence of hypoglycemia (frequency of BG levels ≤50 mg/dL and BG levels ≤39 mg/dL) increased with sensor error, displaying an abrupt slope change at MARD =10%. Similarly, hyperglycemia (frequency of BG levels ≥250 mg/dL and BG levels ≥400 mg/dL) increased and displayed an abrupt slope change at MARD=10%. When added to insulin dosing decisions, information from CGM trend arrows, threshold, and predictive alarms resulted in improvement in average glycemia by 1.86, 8.17, and 8.88 mg/dL, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Using CGM for insulin dosing decisions is feasible below a certain level of sensor error, estimated in silico at MARD=10%. In our experiments, further accuracy improvement did not contribute substantively to better glycemic outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25436913      PMCID: PMC4346608          DOI: 10.1089/dia.2014.0272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  59 in total

Review 1.  Continuous glucose monitoring: roadmap for 21st century diabetes therapy.

Authors:  David C Klonoff
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Peculiarities of the continuous glucose monitoring data stream and their impact on developing closed-loop control technology.

Authors:  Boris Kovatchev; William Clarke
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2008-01

3.  Computing the surveillance error grid analysis: procedure and examples.

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev; Christian A Wakeman; Marc D Breton; Gerald J Kost; Richard F Louie; Nam K Tran; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-06-13

4.  The surveillance error grid.

Authors:  David C Klonoff; Courtney Lias; Robert Vigersky; William Clarke; Joan Lee Parkes; David B Sacks; M Sue Kirkman; Boris Kovatchev
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-06-13

5.  Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Authors:  W L Clarke; D Cox; L A Gonder-Frederick; W Carter; S L Pohl
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  A bihormonal closed-loop artificial pancreas for type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Firas H El-Khatib; Steven J Russell; David M Nathan; Robert G Sutherlin; Edward R Damiano
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 17.956

7.  Performance comparison of the medtronic sof-sensor and enlite glucose sensors in inpatient studies of individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Peter Calhoun; John Lum; Roy W Beck; Craig Kollman
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia.

Authors:  Richard M Bergenstal; David C Klonoff; Satish K Garg; Bruce W Bode; Melissa Meredith; Robert H Slover; Andrew J Ahmann; John B Welsh; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Artificial pancreas: past, present, future.

Authors:  Claudio Cobelli; Eric Renard; Boris Kovatchev
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 9.461

10.  Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compartment in humans.

Authors:  Ananda Basu; Simmi Dube; Michael Slama; Isabel Errazuriz; Jose Carlos Amezcua; Yogish C Kudva; Thomas Peyser; Rickey E Carter; Claudio Cobelli; Rita Basu
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 9.461

View more
  70 in total

1.  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

2.  Differences for Percentage Times in Glycemic Range Between Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Capillary Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Analysis of the REPLACE-BG Dataset.

Authors:  Parizad Avari; Chukwuma Uduku; Daniel George; Pau Herrero; Monika Reddy; Nick Oliver
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Hypoglycemia Reduction and Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 6.118

4.  Analysis: The Accuracy and Efficacy of the Dexcom G4 Platinum Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

Authors:  Cornelis A J van Beers; J H DeVries
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-04-27

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

Review 6.  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.

Authors:  Alison F Smith; Bethany Shinkins; Peter S Hall; Claire T Hulme; Mike P Messenger
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  Effect of BGM Accuracy on the Clinical Performance of CGM: An In-Silico Study.

Authors:  Enrique Campos-Náñez; Marc D Breton
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-31

8.  Clinical Impact of Blood Glucose Monitoring Accuracy: An In-Silico Study.

Authors:  Enrique Campos-Náñez; Kurt Fortwaengler; Marc D Breton
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-06-01

Review 9.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring Integration in Clinical Practice: A Stepped Guide to Data Review and Interpretation.

Authors:  Grazia Aleppo; Kimberly Webb
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-19

Review 10.  Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Mike Grady; Steven Setford; Brian Levy
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.