Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems

被引:14
|
作者
Welsh, John B. [1 ]
Psavko, Simon [1 ]
Zhang, Xiaohe [1 ]
Gao, Peggy [1 ]
Balo, Andrew K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Dexcom Inc, 6340 Sequence Dr, San Diego, CA 92121 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF DIABETES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY | 2024年 / 18卷 / 01期
关键词
accuracy; continuous glucose monitoring; Dexcom; G7; human factors; DAILY INSULIN INJECTIONS; REAL-TIME; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; YOUNG-ADULTS; HYPOGLYCEMIA; PERFORMANCE; MULTICENTER; ADOLESCENTS;
D O I
10.1177/19322968221099879
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Between-system differences for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have important clinical consequences.Purpose: Here we review attributes of Dexcom's fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-generation (G5, G6, and G7) CGM systems.Methods: Accuracy metrics were derived from preapproval trials of the three systems and compared after propensity score adjustments were used to balance baseline demographic characteristics. Metrics included mean absolute relative differences (MARD) between CGM and YSI values and the proportion of CGM values within 20% or 20 mg/dL of the YSI values ("%20/20"). Ease-of-use was evaluated by formal task analysis.Conclusions: Adjusted MARD and %20/20 agreement rates were 9.0%/93.1% (abdomen-placed G5), 9.9%/92.3% (abdomen-placed G6), 9.1%/93.2% (abdomen-placed G7), and 8.2%/95.3% (arm-placed G7). Task analysis favored G7 over earlier systems. Favorable clinical outcomes such as hemoglobin A1c reduction and hypoglycemia avoidance seen with G5 and G6 are anticipated with G7 use.
引用
收藏
页码:143 / 147
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条