Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the accuracy and safety of a seventh generation (G7) Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during 10.5 days of use in adults with diabetes. Methods: Adults with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (on intensive insulin therapy or not) participated at 12 investigational sites in the United States. In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and on the second half of day 10 or the first half of day 11 for frequent comparisons with comparator blood glucose measurements obtained with the YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. Participants wore sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen. Accuracy evaluation included the proportion of CGM values within 15% of comparator glucose levels >100 mg/dL or within 15 mg/dL of comparator levels ≤100 mg/dL (%15/15), along with the %20/20 and %30/30 agreement rates. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between temporally matched CGM and comparator values was also calculated. Results: Data from 316 participants (619 sensors, 77,774 matched pairs) were analyzed. For arm- and abdomen-placed sensors, overall MARDs were 8.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 89.6%, 95.3%, and 98.8% for arm-placed sensors and were 85.5%, 93.2%, and 98.1% for abdomen-placed sensors. Across days of wear, glucose concentration ranges, and rates of change, %20/20 agreement rates varied by no more than 9% from the overall %20/20. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The G7 CGM provides accurate glucose readings with single-digit MARD with arm or abdomen placement in adults with diabetes. NCT04794478

Pilot study in human healthy volunteers on the use of magnetohydrodynamics in needle-free continuous glucose monitoring

“…Over the last few years, CGM devices based on subcutaneous needles have developed rapidly to meet high standards for accuracy and safety 1 . These technologies benefit a rapidly growing number of people with diabetes, in www.nature.com/scientificreports/ particular, insulin users 37 . However, the adoption of CGM devices by people with-or at risk of getting diabetes remains low 38 .…”

Monitoring of paediatric type 1 diabetes

“…Improvements in CGM hardware and signal processing algorithms have led to shorter lag times, decreasing from more than 10 to 3.5 min with the Dexcom G7 [25 ▪▪ ]. Advances in CGM technology have also led to the development of smaller sensors, more options for site placement (now including abdomen, posterior aspect of the upper arms, and buttocks, depending on age and specific sensor), a shorter warm-up period (decreased from ∼ 2 h to <30 min) and devices that combines the sensor and transmitter in a single one-time use disposable piece of equipment [25 ▪▪ ]. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD), the average difference between all CGM values and matched reference values, has decreased to as low as 8.2% (with Dexcom G7), as compared to a MARD of 26% when CGM was first approved for commercial use in 1999.…”

“…Nonadjunctive dosing refers to the ability to make treatment decisions based on a CGM sensor glucose value without a confirmatory fingerstick BG measurement. MARD or mean absolute relative difference is the average of the absolute differences between reference blood glucose measurements and glucose measurements obtained by CGM.a[61].b[25 ▪▪ ].c[62].dFreeStyle Libre 2 User's Manual.e[27].…”

Usability and Teachability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices in Older Adults and Diabetes Educators: Task Analysis and Ease-of-Use Survey

“…A seventh-generation CGM system (G7; Dexcom, Inc) received CE mark in March 2022 and provides accurate estimates of glucose levels in the interstitial fluid in adults [12] as well as children and adolescents [13]. Clinical benefits are anticipated due to the similarity of accuracy metrics between the fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-generation systems and an increased feature set [14].…”