Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes

Georgia M Davis, Elias K Spanakis, Alexandra L Migdal, Lakshmi G Singh, Bonnie Albury, Maria Agustina Urrutia, K Walkiria Zamudio-Coronado, William H Scott, Rebecca Doerfler, Sergio Lizama, Medha Satyarengga, Kashif Munir, Rodolfo J Galindo, Priyathama Vellanki, Saumeth Cardona, Francisco J Pasquel, Limin Peng, Guillermo E Umpierrez, Georgia M Davis, Elias K Spanakis, Alexandra L Migdal, Lakshmi G Singh, Bonnie Albury, Maria Agustina Urrutia, K Walkiria Zamudio-Coronado, William H Scott, Rebecca Doerfler, Sergio Lizama, Medha Satyarengga, Kashif Munir, Rodolfo J Galindo, Priyathama Vellanki, Saumeth Cardona, Francisco J Pasquel, Limin Peng, Guillermo E Umpierrez

Abstract

Objective: Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have transformed ambulatory diabetes management. Until recently, inpatient use of CGM has remained investigational, with limited data on its accuracy in the hospital setting.

Research design and methods: To analyze the accuracy of Dexcom G6, we compared retrospective matched-pair CGM and capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose data from three inpatient CGM studies (two interventional and one observational) in general medicine and surgery patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD), and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of POC reference values for blood glucose >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.

Results: A total of 218 patients were included (96% with type 2 diabetes) with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12 years. The overall MARD (n = 4,067 matched glucose pairs) was 12.8%, and median ARD was 10.1% (interquartile range 4.6, 17.6]. The proportions of readings meeting % 15/15, % 20/20, and % 30/30 criteria were 68.7, 81.7, and 93.8%, respectively. CEG analysis showed 98.7% of all values in zones A and B. MARD and median ARD were higher in the case of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and severe anemia (hemoglobin <7 g/dL).

Conclusions: Our results indicate that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use and may help improve glucose monitoring in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes.

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MARD (A) and median ARD (B) by glucose range, hemoglobin value, and eGFR category.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CEG analysis by sensor age.

References

    1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. . Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593–1603
    1. Galindo RJ, Umpierrez GE, Rushakoff RJ, et al. . Continuous glucose monitors and automated insulin dosing systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020;14:1035–1064
    1. Davis GM, Galindo RJ, Migdal AL, Umpierrez GE. Diabetes technology in the inpatient setting for management of hyperglycemia. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2020;49:79–93
    1. Galindo RJ, Aleppo G, Klonoff DC, et al. . Implementation of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: emergent considerations for remote glucose monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020;14:822–832
    1. Davis GM, Faulds E, Walker T, et al. . Remote continuous glucose monitoring with a computerized insulin infusion protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 medical ICU: proof of concept. Diabetes Care 2021;44:1055–1058
    1. Fact sheet for healthcare providers: use of Dexcom continuous monitoring systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed 28 February 2021. Available from
    1. Abbott’s Freestyle Libre 14 day system now available in U.S. for hospitalized patients with diabetes during COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed 28 February 2021. Available from
    1. Reutrakul S, Genco M, Salinas H, et al. . Feasibility of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic: early experience. Diabetes Care 2020;43:e137–e138
    1. Shehav-Zaltzman G, Segal G, Konvalina N, Tirosh A. Remote glucose monitoring of hospitalized, quarantined patients with diabetes and COVID-19. Diabetes Care 2020;43:e75–e76
    1. Ehrhardt N, Hirsch IB. The impact of COVID-19 on CGM use in the hospital. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2628–2630
    1. Galindo RJ, Migdal AL, Davis GM, et al. . Comparison of the FreeStyle Libre Pro flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system and point-of-care capillary glucose testing in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimen. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2730–2735
    1. Gómez AM, Umpierrez GE, Muñoz OM, et al. . Continuous glucose monitoring versus capillary point-of-care testing for inpatient glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized in the general ward and treated with a basal bolus insulin regimen. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;10:325–329
    1. Singh LG, Satyarengga M, Marcano I, et al. . Reducing inpatient gypoglycemia in the general wards using real-time continuous glucose monitoring: the glucose telemetry system, a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2020;43:2736–2743
    1. 510 (k) Substantial Equivalence Determination Decision Summary. Accessed 1 March 2021. Available from
    1. ACCU-CHEK Inform II blood glucose monitoring system operator’s manual. Accessed 1 March 2021. Available from
    1. Abbott Precision XceedPro Operator’s Manual . Accessed 1 March 2021. Available from
    1. Basu A, Dube S, Slama M, et al. . Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compart-ment in humans. Diabetes 2013;62:4083–4087
    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. Freckmann G, Pleus S, Grady M, Setford S, Levy B. Measures of accuracy for continuous glucose monitoring and blood glucose monitoring devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:575–583
    1. Garg SK, Akturk HK. A new era in continuous glucose monitoring: Food and Drug Administration creates a new category of factory-calibrated nonadjunctive, interoperable class II medical devices. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:391–394
    1. Clarke W, Kovatchev B. Statistical tools to analyze continuous glucose monitor data. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009;11(Suppl. 1):S45–S54
    1. King TE Jr. Racial disparities in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1400–1402

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner