Katherine Nakamura1, Andrew Balo2. 1. Dexcom, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA knakamura@dexcom.com. 2. Dexcom, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System. METHODS: Seventy-two subjects enrolled at 4 US centers; 61% were male; 83% had T1DM and17% had T2DM. Subjects wore at least 1 system for up to 7 days. Subjects participated in a total of 36 hours in the clinic to contribute YSI reference glucose measurements with venous blood draws every 15 minutes on study Day 1, Day 4, and Day 7. RESULTS: The overall mean absolute relative difference (ARD) versus YSI was 13% with a median of 10%. Precision ARD was 9% ± 4% between 2 sensors with a 7% coefficient of variation. The mean ARD versus SMBG was 14% with a median of 11%. One hundred two (94%) sensors lasted 7 days and the systems displayed 97% of their expected glucose readings in average. The time spent in low CGM readings during nighttime hours decreased from the first night use to the 6th night (P < .001) with a small difference in average CGM glucose from 147 ± 40 mg/dL to 166 ± 62 mg/dL. There were no serious adverse events or infectious complications reported. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed the Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System is one of the most accurate CGMs. The significant reduction in nocturnal time spent in a hypoglycemic state observed during this study suggests that a longer term study of CGM use, especially nocturnal use, could be beneficial for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System. METHODS: Seventy-two subjects enrolled at 4 US centers; 61% were male; 83% had T1DM and17% had T2DM. Subjects wore at least 1 system for up to 7 days. Subjects participated in a total of 36 hours in the clinic to contribute YSI reference glucose measurements with venous blood draws every 15 minutes on study Day 1, Day 4, and Day 7. RESULTS: The overall mean absolute relative difference (ARD) versus YSI was 13% with a median of 10%. Precision ARD was 9% ± 4% between 2 sensors with a 7% coefficient of variation. The mean ARD versus SMBG was 14% with a median of 11%. One hundred two (94%) sensors lasted 7 days and the systems displayed 97% of their expected glucose readings in average. The time spent in low CGM readings during nighttime hours decreased from the first night use to the 6th night (P < .001) with a small difference in average CGMglucose from 147 ± 40 mg/dL to 166 ± 62 mg/dL. There were no serious adverse events or infectious complications reported. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed the Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System is one of the most accurate CGMs. The significant reduction in nocturnal time spent in a hypoglycemic state observed during this study suggests that a longer term study of CGM use, especially nocturnal use, could be beneficial for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness.
Authors: Satish K Garg; Ronald L Brazg; Timothy S Bailey; Bruce A Buckingham; Robert H Slover; David C Klonoff; John Shin; John B Welsh; Francine R Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: H Peter Chase; Mary D Roberts; Clare Wightman; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Satish K Garg; Michelle Van Wyhe; Shashi Desai; Wesley Harper; Margarita Lopatin; Miroslaw Bartkowiak; Janet Tamada; Richard C Eastman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Oliver Schnell; Katharine Barnard; Richard Bergenstal; Emanuele Bosi; Satish Garg; Bruno Guerci; Thomas Haak; Irl B Hirsch; Linong Ji; Shashank R Joshi; Maarten Kamp; Lori Laffel; Chantal Mathieu; William H Polonsky; Frank Snoek; Philip Home Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: W Kenneth Ward; Gabriel Heinrich; Matthew Breen; Sheila Benware; Nicole Vollum; Kristin Morris; Chad Knutsen; Joseph D Kowalski; Scott Campbell; Jerry Biehler; Mark S Vreeke; Scott M Vanderwerf; Jessica R Castle; Robert S Cargill Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Bradley Q Fox; Peninah F Benjamin; Ammara Aqeel; Emily Fitts; Spencer Flynn; Brian Levine; Elizaveta Maslak; Rebecca L Milner; Benjamin Ose; Michael Poeschla; Meghna Ray; Maeve Serino; Sahaj S Shah; Kelly L Close Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2021-04
Authors: Michael Sd Agus; Ellie Hirshberg; Vijay Srinivasan; Edward Vincent Faustino; Peter M Luckett; Martha Aq Curley; Jamin Alexander; Lisa A Asaro; Kerry Coughlin-Wells; Donna Duva; Jaclyn French; Natalie Hasbani; Martha T Sisko; Carmen L Soto-Rivera; Garry Steil; David Wypij; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 2.226