Evaluation of a Novel Continuous Glucose Measurement Device in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus across the Glycemic Range

Linda Morrow, Marcus Hompesch, Ann M. Tideman, Jennifer Matson, Nancy Dunne, Scott A. Pardo, Joan Lee Parkes, Holly C. Schachner, David A. Simmons

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · 2011 · 11 citations · 15 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This glucose clamp study assessed the performance of an electrochemical continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for monitoring levels of interstitial glucose. This novel system does not require use of a trocar or needle for sensor insertion. METHOD: Continuous glucose monitoring sensors were inserted subcutaneously into the abdominal tissue of 14 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Subjects underwent an automated glucose clamp procedure with four consecutive post-steady-state glucose plateau periods (40 min each): (a) hypoglycemic (50 mg/dl), (b) hyperglycemic (250 mg/dl), (c) second hypoglycemic (50 mg/dl), and (d) euglycemic (90 mg/dl). Plasma glucose results obtained with YSI glucose analyzers were used for sensor calibration. Accuracy was assessed retrospectively for plateau periods and transition states, when glucose levels were changing rapidly (approximately 2 mg/dl/min). RESULTS: Mean absolute percent difference (APD) was lowest during hypoglycemic plateaus (11.68%, 14.15%) and the euglycemic-to-hypoglycemic transition (14.21%). Mean APD during the hyperglycemic plateau was 17.11%; mean APDs were 18.12% and 19.25% during the hypoglycemic-to-hyperglycemic and hyperglycemic-to-hypoglycemic transitions, respectively. Parkes (consensus) error grid analysis (EGA) and rate EGA of the plateaus and transition periods, respectively, yielded 86.8% and 68.6% accurate results (zone A) and 12.1% and 20.0% benign errors (zone B). Continuous EGA yielded 88.5%, 75.4%, and 79.3% accurate results and 8.3%, 14.3%, and 2.4% benign errors for the euglycemic, hyperglycemic, and hypoglycemic transition periods, respectively. Adverse events were mild and unlikely to be device related. CONCLUSION: This novel CGM system was safe and accurate across the clinically relevant glucose range.

References

15