Performance of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

IF 3.7 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1177/19322968251315459
Manuel Eichenlaub, Delia Waldenmaier, Stephanie Wehrstedt, Stefan Pleus, Manuela Link, Nina Jendrike, Sükrü Öter, Cornelia Haug, Maren Schinz, Vincent Braunack-Mayer, Regula Schneider, Derek Brandt, Guido Freckmann
{"title":"Performance of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.","authors":"Manuel Eichenlaub, Delia Waldenmaier, Stephanie Wehrstedt, Stefan Pleus, Manuela Link, Nina Jendrike, Sükrü Öter, Cornelia Haug, Maren Schinz, Vincent Braunack-Mayer, Regula Schneider, Derek Brandt, Guido Freckmann","doi":"10.1177/19322968251315459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The performance of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is difficult to compare due to different study designs and a lack of head-to-head studies. This study evaluated the performance of FreeStyle Libre 3 (FL3), Dexcom G7 (DG7), and Medtronic Simplera (MSP) against different comparator methods and during clinically relevant glycemic scenarios.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty-four adult participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus wore one sensor of each CGM system in parallel for up to 15 days. Sensors of DG7 and MSP were exchanged on days 5 and 8, respectively. Three 7-hour sessions with 15-minute comparator blood glucose-level measurements using YSI 2300 (YSI, venous), Cobas Integra (INT, venous), and Contour Next (CNX, capillary) were conducted on days 2, 5, and 15. Simultaneously, glucose-level excursions with transient hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia were induced according to a recently published testing procedure. The accuracy was evaluated using various metrics, including mean absolute relative differences (MARDs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with YSI data, the MARDs of FL3, DG7, and MSP were 11.6%, 12.0%, and 11.6%, respectively. Relative to the INT data, the corresponding MARDs were 9.5%, 9.9%, and 13.9%, respectively, and compared with CNX data, MARDs were 9.7%, 10.1%, and 16.6%, respectively. Both FL3 and DG7 showed better accuracy in the normoglycemic and hyperglycemic range, while MSP performed better in the hypoglycemic range.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Performance results of all CGM systems varied depending on the comparator method. However, across comparators FL3 and DG7 tended to be more accurate compared with MSP. All CGM systems showed a lower accuracy compared with previous studies, emphasizing the need for comprehensive study design guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":15475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"19322968251315459"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968251315459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The performance of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is difficult to compare due to different study designs and a lack of head-to-head studies. This study evaluated the performance of FreeStyle Libre 3 (FL3), Dexcom G7 (DG7), and Medtronic Simplera (MSP) against different comparator methods and during clinically relevant glycemic scenarios.

Method: Twenty-four adult participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus wore one sensor of each CGM system in parallel for up to 15 days. Sensors of DG7 and MSP were exchanged on days 5 and 8, respectively. Three 7-hour sessions with 15-minute comparator blood glucose-level measurements using YSI 2300 (YSI, venous), Cobas Integra (INT, venous), and Contour Next (CNX, capillary) were conducted on days 2, 5, and 15. Simultaneously, glucose-level excursions with transient hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia were induced according to a recently published testing procedure. The accuracy was evaluated using various metrics, including mean absolute relative differences (MARDs).

Results: Compared with YSI data, the MARDs of FL3, DG7, and MSP were 11.6%, 12.0%, and 11.6%, respectively. Relative to the INT data, the corresponding MARDs were 9.5%, 9.9%, and 13.9%, respectively, and compared with CNX data, MARDs were 9.7%, 10.1%, and 16.6%, respectively. Both FL3 and DG7 showed better accuracy in the normoglycemic and hyperglycemic range, while MSP performed better in the hypoglycemic range.

Conclusions: Performance results of all CGM systems varied depending on the comparator method. However, across comparators FL3 and DG7 tended to be more accurate compared with MSP. All CGM systems showed a lower accuracy compared with previous studies, emphasizing the need for comprehensive study design guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种连续血糖监测系统在成人1型糖尿病患者中的应用
背景:连续血糖监测(CGM)系统的性能很难比较,因为不同的研究设计和缺乏头对头的研究。本研究评估了FreeStyle Libre 3 (FL3)、Dexcom G7 (DG7)和Medtronic Simplera (MSP)在不同比较方法和临床相关血糖情况下的表现。方法:24名患有1型糖尿病的成年受试者分别佩戴CGM系统的一个传感器,时间长达15天。DG7和MSP分别在第5天和第8天交换传感器。使用YSI 2300 (YSI,静脉)、Cobas Integra (INT,静脉)和Contour Next (CNX,毛细血管)进行3次7小时的15分钟比较血糖水平测量,分别于第2、5和15天进行。同时,根据最近发表的一项测试程序,诱导血糖水平漂移并伴有短暂的高血糖和低血糖。使用各种指标评估准确性,包括平均绝对相对差异(MARDs)。结果:与YSI数据比较,FL3、DG7、MSP的MARDs分别为11.6%、12.0%、11.6%。相对于INT数据,MARDs分别为9.5%、9.9%、13.9%,相对于CNX数据,MARDs分别为9.7%、10.1%、16.6%。FL3和DG7在正常血糖和高血糖范围内的准确性较好,而MSP在低血糖范围内的准确性较好。结论:所有CGM系统的性能结果因比较器方法而异。然而,在比较物中,FL3和DG7比MSP更准确。与之前的研究相比,所有的CGM系统显示出较低的准确性,强调需要全面的研究设计指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
12.00%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a bi-monthly, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Diabetes Technology Society. JDST covers scientific and clinical aspects of diabetes technology including glucose monitoring, insulin and metabolic peptide delivery, the artificial pancreas, digital health, precision medicine, social media, cybersecurity, software for modeling, physiologic monitoring, technology for managing obesity, and diagnostic tests of glycation. The journal also covers the development and use of mobile applications and wireless communication, as well as bioengineered tools such as MEMS, new biomaterials, and nanotechnology to develop new sensors. Articles in JDST cover both basic research and clinical applications of technologies being developed to help people with diabetes.
期刊最新文献
Identifying Actionable Glucose Patterns in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Algorithmic Pattern Recognition. MetaboNet: The Largest Publicly Available Consolidated Data Set for Type 1 Diabetes Management. Quantifying the Effect of Fat and Protein on the Postprandial Glucose Excursion in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Using an Automated Insulin Delivery System. Evaluating Large Language Models-Generated Health Education Materials for Discharged Patients With Diabetes. Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Clinical Outcomes and Productivity Losses Among People Living With Type 2 Diabetes Not Using Insulin From an Employer's Perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1