Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Three Closed-Loop Home Studies Under Free-Living Conditions

Abstract Objectives: Closed-loop (CL) systems modulate insulin delivery based on glucose levels measured by a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Accuracy of the CGM affects CL performance and safety. We evaluated the accuracy of the Freestyle Navigator® II CGM (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) during three unsupervised, randomized, open-label, crossover home CL studies. Materials and Methods: Paired CGM and capillary glucose values (10,597 pairs) were collected from 57 participants with type 1 diabetes (41 adults [mean±SD age, 39±12 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 7.9±0.8%] recruited at five centers and 16 adolescents [mean±SD age, 15.6±3.6 years; mean±SD hemoglobin A1c, 8.1±0.8%] recruited at two centers). Numerical accuracy was assessed by absolute relative difference (ARD) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013 15/15% limits, and clinical accuracy was assessed by Clarke error grid analysis. Results: Total duration of sensor use was 2,002 days (48,052 h). Overall sensor accuracy for the capillary glucose range (1.1–27.8 mmol/L) showed mean±SD and median (interquartile range) ARD of 14.2±15.5% and 10.0% (4.5%, 18.4%), respectively. Lowest mean ARD was observed in the hyperglycemic range (9.8±8.8%). Over 95% of pairs were in combined Clarke error grid Zones A and B (A, 80.1%, B, 16.2%). Overall, 70.0% of the sensor readings satisfied ISO criteria. Mean ARD was consistent (12.3%; 95% of the values fall within ±3.7%) and not different between participants (P=0.06) within the euglycemic and hyperglycemic range, when CL is actively modulating insulin delivery. Conclusions: Consistent accuracy of the CGM within the euglycemic–hyperglycemic range using the Freestyle Navigator II was observed and supports its use in home CL studies. Our results may contribute toward establishing normative CGM performance criteria for unsupervised home use of CL.

[1]  Ahmad Haidar,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy and large inaccuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems. , 2013, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[2]  Guido Freckmann,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: Comparison of Six Sensors Per Subject in Parallel , 2013, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[3]  Roman Hovorka,et al.  Home use of closed-loop insulin delivery for overnight glucose control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a 4-week, multicentre, randomised crossover study. , 2014, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology.

[4]  J. Stockman,et al.  Manual closed-loop insulin delivery in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a phase 2 randomised crossover trial , 2011 .

[5]  Steven J. Russell,et al.  A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors , 2013, Diabetes Care.

[6]  Sofia Dahlqvist,et al.  A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 sensor (Dexcom G4 system) and Enlite sensor (guardian REAL-time system) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes. , 2014, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[7]  Roman Hovorka,et al.  Closed-loop insulin delivery: from bench to clinical practice , 2011, Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

[8]  Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. The DCCT Research Group. , 1991, The American journal of medicine.

[9]  J K Mader,et al.  Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions , 2014, Diabetes, obesity & metabolism.

[10]  Howard Zisser,et al.  New features and performance of a next-generation SEVEN-day continuous glucose monitoring system with short lag time. , 2009, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[11]  T. Bailey,et al.  Clinical Accuracy of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System With an Advanced Algorithm , 2014, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[12]  Marc D. Breton,et al.  Safety of Outpatient Closed-Loop Control: First Randomized Crossover Trials of a Wearable Artificial Pancreas , 2014, Diabetes Care.

[13]  Malgorzata E. Wilinska,et al.  Overnight Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery with Model Predictive Control: Assessment of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia Risk Using Simulation Studies , 2009, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[14]  Roman Hovorka,et al.  Simulation Environment to Evaluate Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems in Type 1 Diabetes , 2010, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[15]  Thomas Peyser,et al.  A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system. , 2013, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[16]  R. Brazg,et al.  Accuracy of the 5-Day FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring System , 2007, Diabetes Care.

[17]  R. Mazze,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and clinical applicability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): Is CGM ready for real time? , 2009, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[18]  Roman Hovorka,et al.  Day and Night Home Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Three-Center Randomized Crossover Study , 2014, Diabetes Care.

[19]  Malgorzata E. Wilinska,et al.  Overnight Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Young People With Type 1 Diabetes: A Free-Living, Randomized Clinical Trial , 2014, Diabetes Care.

[20]  E. Atlas,et al.  Nocturnal glucose control with an artificial pancreas at a diabetes camp. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  Ronald Brazg,et al.  FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring System with TRUstart Algorithm, a 1-Hour Warm-up Time , 2011, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[22]  Boris Kovatchev,et al.  Evaluating the clinical accuracy of two continuous glucose sensors using continuous glucose-error grid analysis. , 2005, Diabetes care.