Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes

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, 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

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the accuracy and safety of a seventh generation (G7) Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during 10.5 days of use in adults with diabetes. Methods: Adults with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (on intensive insulin therapy or not) participated at 12 investigational sites in the United States. In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and on the second half of day 10 or the first half of day 11 for frequent comparisons with comparator blood glucose measurements obtained with the YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. Participants wore sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen. Accuracy evaluation included the proportion of CGM values within 15% of comparator glucose levels >100 mg/dL or within 15 mg/dL of comparator levels ≤100 mg/dL (%15/15), along with the %20/20 and %30/30 agreement rates. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between temporally matched CGM and comparator values was also calculated. Results: Data from 316 participants (619 sensors, 77,774 matched pairs) were analyzed. For arm- and abdomen-placed sensors, overall MARDs were 8.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 89.6%, 95.3%, and 98.8% for arm-placed sensors and were 85.5%, 93.2%, and 98.1% for abdomen-placed sensors. Across days of wear, glucose concentration ranges, and rates of change, %20/20 agreement rates varied by no more than 9% from the overall %20/20. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The G7 CGM provides accurate glucose readings with single-digit MARD with arm or abdomen placement in adults with diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04794478.

Keywords: Accuracy; Continuous glucose monitoring; Dexcom; G7; MARD.

Conflict of interest statement

S.K.G. reports consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Lifescan, Roche, and Lilly; and research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF. M.K. reports research support from Medtronic, SARO, Pfizer, Dexcom, Abbott, Regenacy, Metacrine, Lumos, Ascendis, Sagimet, MannKind, Aeterna-Zentaris, Bio89, Gilead, Senseonics, KOWA, Allergan, NGM, Tolerion, Lilly, Vertex, and Diamyd; and has a consulting agreement with Quest Diagnostics.

K.C. receives research support provided to her institution from Dexcom, Abbott Labs, Abbott Diabetes, Medtronic, Eyenuk, Laxmi, Novo Nordisk, and Insulet and has received consulting fees from Dexcom. T.S.B. reports research support from Abbott Diabetes, Abbott Rapid Diagnostics, Biolinq, Capillary Biomedical, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Kowa, Livongo, Mannkind, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, REMD, Sanofi, Sanvita, Senseonics, Viacyte, vTv Therapeutics, and Zealand Pharma; consulting honoraria from Abbott, CeQur, Lifescan, Mannkind, Medtronic, Novo, and Sanofi; and speaker honoraria from BD, Medtronic, and Sanofi.

H.K.A. received research grants through the University of Colorado from Senseonics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, REMD Biotherapeutics, IM Therapeutics, Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, and Mannkind; and honorarium from the American Diabetes Association for speaking and consulting. M.P.C., on behalf of Diablo Clinical Research, reports research support from Abbott Diabetes Care, Biolinq, Dexcom, Medtronic, SanVita, Senseonics, Abbott Point of Care, Ascensia, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Helixmith. S.A.B. reports research support through the University of Virginia from Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Tolerion, Roche Diagnostics, and Dexcom. J.B.W., A.K.B., J.L.R., and S.E.B are employees and stockholders of Dexcom, Inc.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
G7 components (left to right) include an optional receiver and display unit, packaging, the wearable sensor/transmitter, and the applicator. The wearable measures 24 × 27.3 × 4.6 mm, roughly the size of three stacked quarters. G7, seventh generation.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Aggregated sensor MARD (%) of CGM-YSI histogram plot for 619 sensors placed on the arm or abdomen. CGM-YSI; MARD, mean absolute relative difference.

References

    1. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. : Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021;325:2262–2272.
    1. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al. : Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:371–378.
    1. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al. : Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:379–387.
    1. Karter AJ, Parker MM, Moffet HH, et al. : Association of real-time continuous glucose monitoring with glycemic control and acute metabolic events among patients with insulin-treated diabetes. JAMA 2021;325:2273–2284.
    1. Wadwa RP, Laffel LM, Shah VN, Garg SK: Accuracy of a factory-calibrated, real-time continuous glucose monitoring system during 10 days of use in youth and adults with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:395–402.
    1. Shah VN, Laffel LM, Wadwa RP, Garg SK: Performance of a factory-calibrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring system utilizing an Automated Sensor Applicator. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:428–433.
    1. Welsh JB, Zhang X, Puhr SA, et al. : Performance of a factory-calibrated, real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in pediatric participants with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:254–258.
    1. Dexcom. Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System User Guide: LBL014003 Rev 012 MT23976. (accessed December 13, 2021).
    1. Abbott: FreeStyle Libre 2 Flash Glucose Monitoring System User's Manual. ART44417-001 Rev. A. (accessed December 13, 2021).
    1. Medtronic: Guardian Connect System User Guide. (accessed December 13, 2021).
    1. Steineck IIK, Mahmoudi Z, Ranjan A, et al. : Comparison of continuous glucose monitoring accuracy between abdominal and upper arm insertion sites. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:295–302.
    1. Castorino K, Polsky S, O'Malley G, et al. : Performance of the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring system in pregnant women with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther Dec 2020;22:943–947.
    1. Kovatchev BP, Patek SD, Ortiz EA, Breton MD: Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:177–186.
    1. Freckmann G, Link M, Kamecke U, et al. : Performance and usability of three systems for continuous glucose monitoring in direct comparison. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:890–898.
    1. Moser O, Pandis M, Aberer F, et al. : A head-to-head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019;21:1043–1048.
    1. Pleus S, Schoemaker M, Morgenstern K, et al. : Rate-of-change dependence of the performance of two CGM systems during induced glucose swings. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;9:801–807.
    1. Bailey T, Zisser H, Chang A: New features and performance of a next-generation SEVEN-day continuous glucose monitoring system with short lag time. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009;11:749–755.
    1. Guillot F, Jacobs PG, Wilson LM, et al. : Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Glucose Sensor during aerobic, resistance, and interval exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes. Biosensors (Basel) 2020;10:138.
    1. Calhoun P, Puhr S, Welsh JB, et al. : Lag time of a sixth-generation continuous glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018;13:308.
    1. Litchman ML, Wawrzynski SE, Woodruff WS, et al. : Continuous glucose monitoring in the real world using photosurveillance of #Dexcom on Instagram: exploratory Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2019;5:e11024.
    1. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. : State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:66–72.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner