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.

Background Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices continuously sense and relay glucose concentration data from the interstitial fluid to a mobile phone or receiver. Older adults benefit from this continuous monitoring of glucose levels. Proper deployment of the sensing wire is facilitated by a specialized applicator. Objective Our aim was to assess a new seventh-generation (G7) CGM device (Dexcom, Inc) for use by adults 65 years of age or older and certified diabetes care and education specialists (CDCESs). Ease of use related to intradermal insertion and mobile app setup will be assessed and compared to the fifth- and sixth-generation systems. Methods Formal task analysis was conducted to enumerate the number and complexity of tasks associated with CGM deployment. We recruited 10 older adults with no prior CGM experience and 10 CDCESs to assess ease of use through hands-on insertion and initiation of a G7 system followed by a survey and, for older adults, a system usability scale survey. Results About half as many tasks are needed to deploy G7 compared to G6. Older adults and CDCESs reported overall high usability of the G7 CGM device. CDCESs noted G7’s easier setup compared to previous generations. The system usability scale score for the CGM system was 92.8, which reflects excellent usability. Conclusions For CDCESs and for older adults using the G7 CGM system, cognitive burden is relatively low and reduced compared to previous CGM systems. Easing of this burden and simplification of the glucose monitoring aspect of proper diabetes management will likely contribute to improved outcomes in this population.