Accuracy of the SEVEN continuous glucose monitoring system: comparison with frequently sampled venous glucose measurements

Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose measurement device in patients with diabetes mellitus across the glycemic range

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.

Evolution of devices in diabetes management

Recent technological advancements in insulin administration and glucose monitoring have allowed patients with diabetes to become increasingly involved in their own care. Devices replacing the traditional vial and syringe, such as insulin pens, are gaining popularity and offer simple and convenient insulin administration. Pen devices are associated with improved dose accuracy, reducing the risk of hypo- or hyperglycemia, and are continually being updated with new safety features in order to optimize their performance. In patients for whom glucose variability remains a problem, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion via an implanted canula or continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion via an implanted pump is safe and effective when used correctly, although cost can be a limitation. More accurate retrospective and real-time continuous monitoring devices, which can better detect blood glucose excursions, have become standard components of modern-day diabetes management. The most recent devices have sensor-signaling capabilities with wireless data transmission, leading to reduced time delay and more accurate alerts. Ultimately, though, while self-management remains a critical factor in improving glycemic control at present, human error may undermine even the most accurate treatment interventions. A key long-term goal in diabetes management is, therefore, to develop an automated and accurate closed-loop system for blood glucose monitoring and insulin delivery to better reflect the physiological mechanisms of glucose homeostasis and remove the "human" element. This "artificial pancreas" would offer the most innovative intervention for diabetes management and has the potential to considerably reduce the patient's burden of self-care.

Accuracy performance of the Medtronic NexSensor™ for 6 days in an inpatient setting using abdomen and buttocks insertion sites

BACKGROUND

Users of continuous glucose monitoring are concerned with product accuracy and choice of insertion site. The Medtronic NexSensor™ was evaluated for accuracy during 6 days of wear when inserted in the abdomen and buttocks areas.

METHODS

Adults (ages 18-75) with type 1 diabetes wore two sensors simultaneously for 6 days, one each inserted in the abdomen and buttocks. Subjects underwent a frequent blood sampling study for 12 hours, during which time reference blood glucose values were obtained every 15 minutes and compared to sensor values.

RESULTS

Sixty-three subjects were enrolled, and 61 subjects completed the study. The mean agreement rate between sensor and blood glucose values was 75.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 69.5, 81.4] at the abdomen site, 73.8% (95% CI, 68.8, 78.8) at the buttocks site, and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.8, 80.4) when sensor and reference data were combined between sites. Over 90% of paired sensor-reference values on Clarke error grids were within the A and B ranges. The mean absolute relative differences were 17.1% at the abdomen site, 16.5% at the buttocks site, and 16.8% when sites were combined.

CONCLUSION

The NexSensor was accurate for inpatient, frequent-sample testing for 6 days when inserted into the abdomen and buttocks. The results of this study also provide evidence that both the abdomen and buttocks are suitable as sensor insertion sites.

Use of subcutaneous interstitial fluid glucose to estimate blood glucose: revisiting delay and sensor offset

BACKGROUND

Estimates for delays in the interstitial fluid (ISF) glucose response to changes in blood glucose (BG) differ substantially among research groups. We review these findings along with arguments that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices used to measure ISF delay contribute to the variability. We consider the impact of the ISF delay and review approaches to correct for it, including strategies pursued by the manufacturers of these devices. The focus on how the manufacturers have approached the problem is motivated by the observation that clinicians and researchers are often unaware of how the existing CGM devices process the ISF glucose signal.

METHODS

Numerous models and simulations were used to illustrate problems related to measurement and correction of ISF glucose delay.

RESULTS

We find that (1) there is no evidence that the true physiologic ISF glucose delay is longer than 5-10 min and that the values longer than this can be explained by delays in CGM filtering routines; (2) the primary impact of the true ISF delay is on sensor calibration algorithms, making it difficult to estimate calibration factors and offset (OS) currents; (3) inaccurate estimates of the sensor OS current result in overestimation of sensor glucose at low values, making it difficult to detect hypoglycemia; (4) many device companies introduce nonlinear components into their filters, which can be expected to confound attempts by investigators to reconstruct BG using linear deconvolution; and (5) algorithms advocated by academic groups are seldom compared to algorithms pursued by industry, making it difficult to ascertain their value.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of any direct comparisons between existing and new algorithms for correcting ISF delay and sensor OS current is, in part, due to the difficulty in extracting relevant details from industry patents and/or extracting unfiltered sensor signals from industry products. The model simulation environment, where all aspects of the signal can be derived, may be more appropriate for developing new filtering and calibration strategies. Nevertheless, clinicians, academic researchers, and the industry would benefit from collaborating when evaluating those strategies.

Use of sensors in the treatment and follow-up of patients with diabetes mellitus

Glucose control is the cornerstone of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) treatment. Although self-regulation using capillary glycemia (SRCG) still remains the best procedure in clinical practice, continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM) offer the possibility of continuous and dynamic assessment of interstitial glucose concentration. CGM systems have the potential to improve glycemic control while decreasing the incidence of hypoglycemia but the efficiency, compared with SRCG, is still debated. CGM systems have the greatest potential value in patients with hypoglycemic unawareness and in controlling daily fluctuations in blood glucose. The implementation of continuous monitoring in the standard clinical setting has not yet been established but a new generation of open and close loop subcutaneous insulin infusion devices are emerging making insulin treatment and glycemic control more reliable.

Accuracy of a new real-time continuous glucose monitoring algorithm

BACKGROUND

Through minimally invasive sensor-based continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), individuals can manage their blood glucose (BG) levels more aggressively, thereby improving their hemoglobin A1c level, while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. Tighter glycemic control through CGM, however, requires an accurate glucose sensor and calibration algorithm with increased performance at lower BG levels.

METHODS

Sensor and BG measurements for 72 adult and adolescent subjects were obtained during the course of a 26-week multicenter study evaluating the efficacy of the Paradigm REAL-Time (PRT) sensor-augmented pump system (Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA) in an outpatient setting. Subjects in the study arm performed at least four daily finger stick measurements. A retrospective analysis of the data set was performed to evaluate a new calibration algorithm utilized in the Paradigm Veo insulin pump (Medtronic Diabetes) and to compare these results to performance metrics calculated for the PRT.

RESULTS

A total of N = 7193 PRT sensor downloads for 3 days of use, as well as 90,472 temporally and nonuniformly paired data points (sensor and meter values), were evaluated, with 5841 hypoglycemic and 15,851 hyperglycemic events detected through finger stick measurements. The Veo calibration algorithm decreased the overall mean absolute relative difference by greater than 0.25 to 15.89%, with hypoglycemia sensitivity increased from 54.9% in the PRT to 82.3% in the Veo (90.5% with predictive alerts); however, hyperglycemia sensitivity was decreased only marginally from 86% in the PRT to 81.7% in the Veo.

CONCLUSIONS

The Veo calibration algorithm, with sensor error reduced significantly in the 40- to 120-mg/dl range, improves hypoglycemia detection, while retaining accuracy at high glucose levels.

An analysis of the SEVEN system: have we reached the summit of needle-type sensor accuracy?

In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Zisser and colleagues show improved sensor accuracy with the newest generation of needle-type sensors as compared to first generation sensors. Can we expect further improvement? It is unknown what the future holds, but there certainly seems much to be gained from improved calibration procedures. In addition, sensor operating times are increasing and it is hoped that this will translate into improved sensor use and thereby into improved glycemic control.