Cargando…

A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors

OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h clo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Damiano, Edward R., El-Khatib, Firas H., Zheng, Hui, Nathan, David M., Russell, Steven J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23275350
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070
_version_ 1782256870755401728
author Damiano, Edward R.
El-Khatib, Firas H.
Zheng, Hui
Nathan, David M.
Russell, Steven J.
author_facet Damiano, Edward R.
El-Khatib, Firas H.
Zheng, Hui
Nathan, David M.
Russell, Steven J.
author_sort Damiano, Edward R.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h closed-loop BG control experiments in the hospital. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements (GlucoScout, International Biomedical) obtained every 15 min (2,360 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from three CGM devices, the Navigator (Abbott Diabetes Care), the Seven Plus (DexCom), and the Guardian (Medtronic), worn simultaneously by each subject. Errors in paired PG–CGMG measurements and data reporting percentages were obtained for each CGM device. RESULTS: The Navigator had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 11.8 ± 11.1% and an average MARD across all 12 experiments of 11.8 ± 3.8%. The Seven Plus and Guardian produced aggregate MARDs of all paired points of 16.5 ± 17.8% and 20.3 ± 18.0%, respectively, and average MARDs across all 12 experiments of 16.5 ± 6.7% and 20.2 ± 6.8%, respectively. Data reporting percentages, a measure of reliability, were 76% for the Seven Plus and nearly 100% for the Navigator and Guardian. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of three CGM devices for BG values from 36 to 563 mg/dL revealed marked differences in performance characteristics that include accuracy, precision, and reliability. The Navigator outperformed the other two in these areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3554299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher American Diabetes Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35542992014-02-01 A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors Damiano, Edward R. El-Khatib, Firas H. Zheng, Hui Nathan, David M. Russell, Steven J. Diabetes Care Original Research OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h closed-loop BG control experiments in the hospital. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements (GlucoScout, International Biomedical) obtained every 15 min (2,360 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from three CGM devices, the Navigator (Abbott Diabetes Care), the Seven Plus (DexCom), and the Guardian (Medtronic), worn simultaneously by each subject. Errors in paired PG–CGMG measurements and data reporting percentages were obtained for each CGM device. RESULTS: The Navigator had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 11.8 ± 11.1% and an average MARD across all 12 experiments of 11.8 ± 3.8%. The Seven Plus and Guardian produced aggregate MARDs of all paired points of 16.5 ± 17.8% and 20.3 ± 18.0%, respectively, and average MARDs across all 12 experiments of 16.5 ± 6.7% and 20.2 ± 6.8%, respectively. Data reporting percentages, a measure of reliability, were 76% for the Seven Plus and nearly 100% for the Navigator and Guardian. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of three CGM devices for BG values from 36 to 563 mg/dL revealed marked differences in performance characteristics that include accuracy, precision, and reliability. The Navigator outperformed the other two in these areas. American Diabetes Association 2013-02 2013-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3554299/ /pubmed/23275350 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070 Text en © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
spellingShingle Original Research
Damiano, Edward R.
El-Khatib, Firas H.
Zheng, Hui
Nathan, David M.
Russell, Steven J.
A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title_full A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title_fullStr A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title_short A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
title_sort comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23275350
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070
work_keys_str_mv AT damianoedwardr acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT elkhatibfirash acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT zhenghui acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT nathandavidm acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT russellstevenj acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT damianoedwardr comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT elkhatibfirash comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT zhenghui comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT nathandavidm comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors
AT russellstevenj comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors