Real-World Evidence and Glycemic Improvement Using Dexcom G6 Features

Abstract

Background: Optional features of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems empower patients and caregivers to understand and manage diabetes in new ways. We examined associations between use of optional features, demographics, and glycemic outcomes. Methods: Retrospective cohort studies were performed with data from US-based users of the G6 CGM System (Dexcom, Inc.). For all cohorts, data included sensor glucose values (SGVs). In separate cohorts, use of alert features (for hyperglycemia, existing hypoglycemia, and impending hypoglycemia), remote data sharing feature (Share), software for retrospective pattern analysis (CLARITY), "virtual assistant" feature that announces the current SGV and trend in response to a spoken request were assessed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize feature set utilization patterns and relate them to glycemic outcomes. Results: Most individual features were consistently adopted by high proportions of G6 users. Threshold SGVs chosen for activating hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia alerts varied with age and were higher among the youngest and oldest patients. Use of the Share feature was more common among young patients and those with type 1 diabetes. Individuals who used more of the alert and notification features had more favorable glycemic outcomes, including time in range (TIR), than those who used fewer. More extensive engagement with CLARITY notifications was associated with higher TIR. Frequent use of the virtual assistant feature was associated with higher TIR and lower mean SGV. Conclusions: Optional features of the G6 CGM system are acceptable to and appear to benefit patients who use them. Different levels of engagement suggest that demographics and personal circumstances play a role in how patients and caregivers use CGM features to help manage diabetes.

Keywords: CLARITY; Continuous glucose monitoring; Dexcom; Real-world data; Type 1 diabetes.

FIG. 1.

Feature utilization rates and settings of the alerts for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. (A) Utilization rates of different features among 19,447 patients according to patient age. (B) and (C) Mean glucose concentration used to trigger the hyperglycemia alert among 15,960 patients with the high alert enabled (B) or the hypoglycemia alert among 17,936 patients with the low alert enabled (C) according to patient age.