Author(s): Kovatchev B, Anderson S, Heinemann L, Clarke W
Abstract Share this page
Abstract OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the numerical and clinical accuracy of four continuous glucose monitors (CGMs): Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Accuracy data for the four CGMs were collected in two studies: Study 1 enrolled 14 adults with type 1 diabetes at the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville, Virginia; study 2 enrolled 20 adults with type 1 diabetes at the Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany. All participants underwent hyperinsulinemic clamps including 1.5-2 h of maintained euglycemia at 5.6 mmol/l followed by descent into hypoglycemia, sustained hypoglycemia at 2.5 mmol/l for 30 min, and recovery. Reference blood glucose sampling was performed every 5 min. The UVA study tested Guardian, DexCom, and Navigator simultaneously; the Profil study tested Glucoday. RESULTS: Regarding numerical accuracy, during euglycemia, the mean absolute relative differences (MARDs) of Guardian, DexCom, Navigator, and Glucoday were 15.2, 21.2, 15.3, and 15.6\%, respectively. During hypoglycemia, the MARDs were 16.1, 21.5, 10.3, and 17.5\%, respectively. Regarding clinical accuracy, continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA) revealed 98.9, 98.3, 98.6, and 95.5\% zones A + B hits in euglycemia. During hypoglycemia, zones A + B hits were 84.4, 97.0, and 96.2\% for Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday, respectively. Because of frequent loss of sensitivity, there were insufficient hypoglycemic DexCom data to perform CG-EGA. CONCLUSIONS: The numerical accuracy of Guardian, Navigator, and Glucoday was comparable, with an advantage to the Navigator in hypoglycemia; the numerical errors of the DexCom were approximately 30\% larger. The clinical accuracy of the four sensors was similar in euglycemia and was higher for the Navigator and Glucoday in hypoglycemia.
This article was published in Diabetes Care
and referenced in Journal of Diabetes & Metabolism