Background: The aim of this study was to determine the performance of the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system across three sensor wear sites in pregnant women with diabetes in the second or third trimesters. Methods: Participants with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes mellitus were enrolled at three sites. Each wore two G6 sensors on the abdomen, upper buttock, and/or posterior upper arm for 10 days and underwent a 6-h clinic session between days 3 and 7 of sensor wear, during which YSI reference blood glucose values were obtained every 30 min. No intentional glucose manipulations were performed. Accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values that were within ±20% of paired reference values >100 mg/dL or ±20 mg/dL of YSI values ≤100 mg/dL (hereafter referred to as %20/20), as well as the analogous %15/15, %30/30, and %40/40. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM-YSI pairs was also calculated. Results: Thirty-two participants with T1D (n = 20), T2D (n = 3), or GDM (n = 9) were enrolled: 19 were in the second trimester and 13 were in the third trimester of pregnancy. Compared with the reference, 92.5% of CGM values were within ±20%/20 mg/dL. The overall MARD and that of sensors worn on the abdomen, upper buttock, and posterior upper arm was 10.3%, 11.5%, 11.2%, and 8.7%, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events. Skin reactions at the insertion sites were absent or minor. Conclusions: The Dexcom G6 CGM system is accurate and safe in pregnant women with diabetes.
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the performance of the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system across three sensor wear sites in pregnant women with diabetes in the second or third trimesters. Methods:Participants with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes mellitus were enrolled at three sites. Each wore two G6 sensors on the abdomen, upper buttock, and/or posterior upper arm for 10 days and underwent a 6-h clinic session between days 3 and 7 of sensor wear, during which YSI reference blood glucose values were obtained every 30 min. No intentional glucose manipulations were performed. Accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values that were within ±20% of paired reference values >100 mg/dL or ±20 mg/dL of YSI values ≤100 mg/dL (hereafter referred to as %20/20), as well as the analogous %15/15, %30/30, and %40/40. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM-YSI pairs was also calculated. Results: Thirty-two participants with T1D (n = 20), T2D (n = 3), or GDM (n = 9) were enrolled: 19 were in the second trimester and 13 were in the third trimester of pregnancy. Compared with the reference, 92.5% of CGM values were within ±20%/20 mg/dL. The overall MARD and that of sensors worn on the abdomen, upper buttock, and posterior upper arm was 10.3%, 11.5%, 11.2%, and 8.7%, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events. Skin reactions at the insertion sites were absent or minor. Conclusions: The Dexcom G6 CGM system is accurate and safe in pregnant women with diabetes.
Authors: Michael Müller-Korbsch; Gersina Rega-Kaun; Peter Fasching; Maria Fangmeyer-Binder; Lisa Fruehwald; Michael Heer Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-08-15
Authors: Ravinder Jeet Kaur; Byron H Smith; Basak Ozaslan; Jordan E Pinsker; Mari Charisse Trinidad; Grenye O'Malley; Donna Desjardins; Kristin N Castorino; Camilla Levister; Corey Reid; Shelly McCrady-Spitzer; Selassie J Ogyaadu; Mei Mei Church; Molly Piper; Walter K Kremers; Barak Rosenn; Francis J Doyle; Eyal Dassau; Carol J Levy; Yogish C Kudva Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 7.337
Authors: Natalie Segev; Lindsey N Hornung; Siobhan E Tellez; Joshua D Courter; Sarah A Lawson; Jaimie D Nathan; Maisam Abu-El-Haija; Deborah A Elder Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Grenye O'Malley; Barak Rosenn; Emily V Nosova; Yogish C Kudva; Sophia Scarpelli Shchur; Camilla Levister; Ravinder Kaur; Jordan E Pinsker; Kristin Castorino; Mei Mei Church; Eyal Dassau; Carol J Levy Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-07-03
Authors: Satish K Garg; Mark Kipnes; Kristin Castorino; Timothy S Bailey; Halis Kaan Akturk; John B Welsh; Mark P Christiansen; Andrew K Balo; Sue A Brown; Jennifer L Reid; Stayce E Beck Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 7.337
Authors: Elizabeth O Buschur; Kristen Campbell; Laura Pyle; Rachel Garcetti; Prakriti Joshee; Jamie K Demmitt; Janet K Snell-Bergeon; Sarit Polsky Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; B Wayne Bequette; Jennifer K Raymond; Gerard Coté; Jennifer L Sherr; Jessica Castle; John Pickup; Yarmela Pavlovic; Juan Espinoza; Laurel H Messer; Tim Heise; Carlos E Mendez; Sarah Kim; Barry H Ginsberg; Umesh Masharani; Rodolfo J Galindo; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-07