INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is often assessed with respect to blood glucose (BG) readings. CGM readings are affected by a physiological and a technical time delay when compared to BG readings. In this analysis, the dependence of CGM performance parameters on the BG rate of change was investigated for 2 CGM systems. METHODS: Data from a previously published study were retrospectively analyzed. An established CGM system (Dexcom G4, Dexcom, San Diego, CA; system A) and a prototype system (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany; system B) with 2 sensors each were worn by 10 subjects in parallel. Glucose swings were induced to achieve rapidly changing BG concentrations. Mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were calculated in different BG rate-of-change categories. In addition, sensor-to-sensor precision was assessed. RESULTS: At BG rates of change of -1 mg/dl/min to 0 mg/dl/min and 0 mg/dl/min to +1 mg/dl/min, MARD results were 12.6% and 11.3% for system A and 8.2% and 10.0% for system B. At rapidly changing BG concentrations (<-3 mg/dl/min and ≥+3 mg/dl/min), higher MARD results were found for both systems, but system B was less affected (system A: 24.9% and 29.6%, system B: 10.6% and 16.3%). The impact of rate of change on sensor-to-sensor precision was less pronounced. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were affected by rapidly changing BG concentrations to some degree, although system B was mostly unaffected by decreasing BG concentrations. It would seem that technological advancements in CGM systems might allow for a more precise tracking of BG concentrations even at rapidly changing BG concentrations.
INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is often assessed with respect to blood glucose (BG) readings. CGM readings are affected by a physiological and a technical time delay when compared to BG readings. In this analysis, the dependence of CGM performance parameters on the BG rate of change was investigated for 2 CGM systems. METHODS: Data from a previously published study were retrospectively analyzed. An established CGM system (Dexcom G4, Dexcom, San Diego, CA; system A) and a prototype system (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany; system B) with 2 sensors each were worn by 10 subjects in parallel. Glucose swings were induced to achieve rapidly changing BG concentrations. Mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were calculated in different BG rate-of-change categories. In addition, sensor-to-sensor precision was assessed. RESULTS: At BG rates of change of -1 mg/dl/min to 0 mg/dl/min and 0 mg/dl/min to +1 mg/dl/min, MARD results were 12.6% and 11.3% for system A and 8.2% and 10.0% for system B. At rapidly changing BG concentrations (<-3 mg/dl/min and ≥+3 mg/dl/min), higher MARD results were found for both systems, but system B was less affected (system A: 24.9% and 29.6%, system B: 10.6% and 16.3%). The impact of rate of change on sensor-to-sensor precision was less pronounced. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems were affected by rapidly changing BG concentrations to some degree, although system B was mostly unaffected by decreasing BG concentrations. It would seem that technological advancements in CGM systems might allow for a more precise tracking of BG concentrations even at rapidly changing BG concentrations.
Authors: Solveig Halldorsdottir; Mary Ellen Warchal-Windham; Jane F Wallace; Scott Pardo; Joan Lee Parkes; David A Simmons Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-09-01
Authors: Leslie J Klaff; Ronald Brazg; Kristen Hughes; Ann M Tideman; Holly C Schachner; Patricia Stenger; Scott Pardo; Nancy Dunne; Joan Lee Parkes Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Timothy S Bailey; Andrew Ahmann; Ronald Brazg; Mark Christiansen; Satish Garg; Elaine Watkins; John B Welsh; Scott W Lee Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Edward R Damiano; Katherine McKeon; Firas H El-Khatib; Hui Zheng; David M Nathan; Steven J Russell Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2014-04-21
Authors: Gregory P Forlenza; Brandon M Nathan; Antoinette Moran; Ty B Dunn; Gregory J Beilman; Timothy L Pruett; Boris P Kovatchev; Melena D Bellin Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 6.118
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: 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