Literature DB >> 28585874

Stability, Accuracy, and Risk Assessment of a Novel Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor.

Jonathan Hughes1, John B Welsh1, Naresh C Bhavaraju1, Stephen J Vanslyke1, Andrew K Balo1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Users of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are concerned with the frequency of inserting and calibrating new sensors, with sensor accuracy and reliability throughout the sensor's functional life, and with the risks associated with inaccurate sensor readings.
METHODS: A sensor for our next-generation CGM system was tested for accuracy by comparison with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) values throughout 10 days of wear. Fifty subjects (49 with type 1 diabetes, 1 with type 2 diabetes, 20 male, mean ± standard deviation [SD] age 32.5 ± 18.7 years) enrolled. Subjects wore one sensor each, calibrated it once per day, and obtained multiple daily SMBG values for comparison. A total of 2739 paired CGM-SMBG values were analyzed to arrive at standard accuracy statistics and plotted on the surveillance error grid (SEG) to estimate the risk of SMBG-CGM discrepancies.
RESULTS: The overall mean and median absolute relative difference (ARD) values were 9.6% and 7.2%, respectively. The median ARD values ranged from 8.9% on Day 1 to 6.5% on Day 10. SEG analysis categorized 2727 points (99.6%) as "no" or "slight" risk and 12 points (0.4%) as "moderate" or "great" risk. Thirty-nine (79.6%) of the 49 systems worked through the end of Day 10. Sensors and adhesives were well tolerated, with minimal erythema and induration.
CONCLUSIONS: This new CGM system's accuracy throughout its 10-day functional life, the convenience associated with once-daily calibrations, and the high proportion of measurements in the "no risk" zone of the SEG support its nonadjunctive use in diabetes management and closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous glucose monitoring; Glucose sensors; Self-monitored blood glucose; Sensor accuracy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28585874      PMCID: PMC5467111          DOI: 10.1089/dia.2017.0072

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


  12 in total

1.  Self-monitoring of blood glucose: professional advice and daily practice of patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Johanna Hortensius; Jaap J van der Bijl; Nanne Kleefstra; Sebatiaan T Houweling; Henk J G Bilo
Journal:  Diabetes Educ       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 2.140

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry.

Authors:  Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 5.  Fault detection and safety in closed-loop artificial pancreas systems.

Authors:  B Wayne Bequette
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-07-21

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

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev; Stephen D Patek; Edward Andrew Ortiz; Marc D Breton
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  From Two to One Per Day Calibration of Dexcom G4 Platinum by a Time-Varying Day-Specific Bayesian Prior.

Authors:  Giada Acciaroli; Martina Vettoretti; Andrea Facchinetti; Giovanni Sparacino; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING: A CONSENSUS CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY.

Authors:  Vivian A Fonseca; George Grunberger; Henry Anhalt; Timothy S Bailey; Thomas Blevins; Satish K Garg; Yehuda Handelsman; Irl B Hirsch; Eric A Orzeck; Victor Lawrence Roberts; William Tamborlane
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.443

9.  Glucose monitoring after fruit peeling: pseudohyperglycemia when neglecting hand washing before fingertip blood sampling: wash your hands with tap water before you check blood glucose level.

Authors:  Takahisa Hirose; Tomoya Mita; Yoshio Fujitani; Ryuzo Kawamori; Hirotaka Watada
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Continuous Glucose Sensor Survival and Accuracy Over 14 Consecutive Days.

Authors:  Daniel J DeSalvo; Trang T Ly; R Paul Wadwa; Laurel Messer; Emily Westfall; Divya Gopisetty; Sarah Hanes; Rie von Eyben; David M Maahs; Bruce A Buckingham
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  The Future of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Satish K Garg; Halis K Akturk
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Cutaneous Complications With Continuous or Flash Glucose Monitoring Use: Systematic Review of Trials and Observational Studies.

Authors:  Nurul A Mohd Asarani; Andrew N Reynolds; Sara E Boucher; Martin de Bock; Benjamin J Wheeler
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-08-27
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.