Accuracy, Utilization, and Effectiveness Comparisons of Different Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems
- PMID: 30681379
- PMCID: PMC6434583
- DOI: 10.1089/dia.2018.0374
Accuracy, Utilization, and Effectiveness Comparisons of Different Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems
Abstract
Background: Accuracy and feature sets of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems may influence device utilization and outcomes. We compared clinical trial accuracy and real-world utilization and effectiveness of two different CGM systems.
Materials and methods: Separately conducted accuracy studies of a fifth-generation and a sixth-generation CGM system involved 50 and 159 adults, respectively. For between-system performance comparisons, propensity score methods were utilized to balance cohort characteristics. Real-world outcomes were assessed in 10,000 anonymized patients who had switched from the fifth-generation to the sixth-generation system and had used connected mobile devices to upload data from both systems, allowing pairwise comparisons of device utilization and glucose concentration distributions.
Results: Propensity score-adjusted mean absolute relative differences for the fifth- and sixth-generation systems were 9.0% and 9.9%, and the percentages of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL were 93.1% and 92.5%, respectively. The sixth-generation system, but not the fifth-generation system, met accuracy criteria for interoperable CGM systems. Both systems had high real-world utilization rates (93.8% and 95.3% in the fifth- and sixth-generation systems, respectively). Use of the sixth-generation system was associated with fewer glucose values <55 mg/dL (<3.1 mmol/L) (0.7% vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001) and more values 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) (57.3% vs. 56.0%, P < 0.001) than the fifth-generation system.
Conclusions: CGM performance outcomes can be compared through the propensity score analysis of clinical trial data and pairwise comparisons of real-world data. The systems compared here had nearly equivalent accuracy and utilization rates. Longer term biochemical and psychosocial benefits observed with the fifth-generation system are also expected with the sixth-generation system.
Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Dexcom G5; Dexcom G6; Propensity scoring; Real-world evidence..
Conflict of interest statement
The authors are employees of Dexcom, Inc.
References
-
- 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 - PubMed
-
- Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy K, et al. : Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:365–374 - PubMed
-
- Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, et al. : Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:1367–1377 - PubMed
-
- Olafsdottir AF, Polonsky W, Bolinder J, et al. : A randomized clinical trial of the effect of continuous glucose monitoring on nocturnal hypoglycemia, daytime hypoglycemia, glycemic variability, and hypoglycemia confidence in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (GOLD-3). Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:274–284 - PMC - PubMed
-
- Polonsky WH, Hessler D, Ruedy KJ, et al. : The impact of continuous glucose monitoring on markers of quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes: further findings from the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2017;40:736–741 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous