Comparator Data Characteristics and Testing Procedures for the Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Comparing the performance of different continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is challenging due to the lack of comprehensive guidelines for clinical study design. In particular, the absence of concise requirements for the distribution of comparator (reference) blood glucose (BG) concentrations and their rate of change (RoC) that are used to evaluate CGM performance, impairs comparability. For this article, several experts in the field of CGM performance testing have collaborated to propose characteristics of the distribution of comparator measurements that should be collected during CGM performance testing. Specifically, it is proposed that at least 7.5% of comparator BG concentrations are <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and >300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L), respectively, and that at least 7.5% of BG-RoC combinations indicate fast BG changes with impending hypo- or hyperglycemia, respectively. These proposed characteristics of the comparator data can facilitate the harmonization of testing conditions across different studies and CGM systems and ensure that the most relevant scenarios representing real-life situations are established during performance testing. In addition, a study protocol and testing procedure for the manipulation of glucose levels are suggested that enable the collection of comparator data with these characteristics. This work is an important step toward establishing a future standard for the performance evaluation of CGM systems.

Accuracy of the Third Generation of a 14-Day Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.

INTRODUCTION: We have evaluated the performance of the FreeStyle Libre® 3 continuous glucose monitoring system (FSL3) compared to (1) the venous plasma reference for participants aged ≥ 6 years and (2) the fingerstick capillary blood glucose (BG) reference for pediatric participants aged 4 and 5 years. The analytical performance of the third-generation factory-calibrated FSL3 CGM system was compared to the plasma venous blood glucose reference using the YSI 2300 STAT PLUS Glucose and Lactate Analyzer (the YSI reference) and the self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) reference for participants aged ≥ 6 years and participants aged 4 and 5 years, respectively. METHODS: A total of 108 participants aged ≥ 4 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes from four sites in the USA were enrolled in the study. The data of 100 participants were ultimately evaluated. Adult participants (aged ≥ 18 years) participated in three in-clinic sessions, and pediatric participants (aged 4-17 years) participated in up to two in-clinic sessions, all stratified to provide data for days 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 or 14 of sensor wear. Performance evaluation included accuracy measures, such as proportion of CGM values that fell within ± 20% or ± 20 mg/dL (1.1 mmol/L) of the reference glucose values, and difference measures, such as the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between the CGM and reference values. RESULTS: Data from the 100 study participants were analyzed. The overall MARD was 7.8%, and 93.4% of the CGM values were within ± 20% or ± 20 mg/dL of the YSI reference for participants aged ≥ 6 years, with 6845 CGM-YSI matched pairs. The performance was stable over the 14-day wear period. For participants aged 4-5 years, MARD was 10.0%, and 88.9% of the CGM values were within 20%/20 mg/dL compared to a SMBG reference. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The FSL3 CGM system demonstrated accurate performance across the dynamic glycemic range during the 14-day sensor wear period.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Accuracy of a 14-Day Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring System With Advanced Algorithm in Pediatric and Adult Population With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated the analytical performance of the second-generation factory-calibrated FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring (FreeStyle Libre 2) System compared to plasma venous blood glucose reference, Yellow Springs Instrument 2300 (YSI). METHODS: The study enrolled participants aged four and above with type 1 or type 2 diabetes at seven sites in the United States. Adult participants (18+ years) participated in three in-clinic sessions and pediatric participants (4-17 years) participated in up to two in-clinic sessions stratified to provide data for days 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, or 14 of sensor wear. Participants aged 11+ underwent supervised glycemic manipulation during in-clinic sessions to achieve glucose levels across the measurement range of the System. Performance evaluation included accuracy measures such as the proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) values that were within ±20% or ±20 mg/dL of reference glucose values, and bias measures such as the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between CGM and reference values. RESULTS: Data from the 144 adults and 129 pediatric participants were analyzed. Percent of sensor results within ±20%/20 mg/dL of YSI reference were 93.2% and 92.1%, and MARD was 9.2% and 9.7% for the adults and pediatric participants, respectively. The System performed well in the hypoglycemic range, with 94.3% of the results for the adult population and 96.1% of the data for pediatric population being within 15 mg/dL of the YSI reference. The time lag was 2.4 ± 4.6 minutes for adults and 2.1 ± 5.0 minutes for pediatrics. CONCLUSIONS: The System demonstrated improved analytical accuracy performance across the dynamic range during the 14-day sensor wear period as compared to the previous-generation device.NCT#: NCT03607448 and NCT03820050.

Comparing Patch vs Pen Bolus Insulin Delivery in Type 2 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Profiles.

OBJECTIVE: CeQur Simplicity™ (CeQur, Marlborough, MA) is a 3-day insulin delivery patch designed to meet mealtime insulin requirements. A recently reported 48-week, randomized, multicenter, interventional trial compared efficacy, safety and self-reported outcomes in 278 adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin therapy who initiated and managed mealtime insulin therapy with a patch pump versus insulin pen. We assessed changes in key glycemic metrics among a subset of patients who wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. METHODS: Study participants (patch, n = 49; pen, n = 48) wore a CGM device in masked setting during the baseline period and prior to week 24. Glycemic control was assessed using international consensus guidelines for percentage of Time In Range (%TIR: >70% at 70-180 mg/dL), Time Below Range (%TBR: <4% at <70 mg/dL; <1% at <54 mg/dL), and Time Above Range (%TAR: <25% at >180 mg/dL; <5% at >250 mg/dL). RESULTS: Both the patch and pen groups achieved recommended targets in %TIR (74.1% ± 18.7%, 75.2 ± 16.1%, respectively) and marked reductions in %TAR >180 mg/dL (21.1% ± 19.9%, 19.7% ± 17.5%, respectively) but with increased %TBR <70 mg/dL (4.7% ± 5.2%, 5.1 ± 5.8, respectively), all P < .0001. No significant between-group differences in glycemic improvements or adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CGM confirmed that the patch or pen can be used to safely initiate and optimize basal-bolus therapy using a simple insulin adjustment algorithm with SMBG. Preference data suggest that use of the patch vs pen may enhance treatment adherence.

Evaluation of Accuracy and Safety of the Next-Generation Up to 180-Day Long-Term Implantable Eversense Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: The PROMISE Study.

Background: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is being rapidly adopted as standard of care for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. The PROMISE study (NCT03808376) evaluated the accuracy and safety of the next-generation implantable Eversense CGM system for up to 180 days. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter study involving 181 subjects with diabetes at 8 USA sites. All subjects were inserted with a primary sensor. Ninety-six subjects had a second sensor, either an identical sensor or a modified sensor (sacrificial boronic acid [SBA]), inserted in their other arm (53 and 43 subjects, respectively). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing CGM to YSI 2300 glucose analyzer (Yellow Springs Instrument [YSI]) values during 10 clinic visits (day 1-180). Confirmed event detection rates, calibration stability, sensor survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated. Results: For primary sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 92.9%; overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 9.1%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 93% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 56%. Sixty-five percent of the primary sensors survived to 180 days. For the SBA sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 93.9%; overall MARD was 8.5%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 94% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 63%. Ninety percent of the SBA sensors survived to 180 days. No device- or insertion/removal procedure-related SAEs were reported. Conclusion: These data show the next-generation Eversense CGM system had sustained accuracy and safety up to 180 days, with an improved calibration scheme and survival, using the primary or SBA sensors.

Performance of an Automated Insulin Delivery System: Results of Early Phase Feasibility Studies.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have demonstrated improvements in time-in-range (TIR, blood glucose 70-180 mg/dL) without increasing hypoglycemia. Testing a closed-loop system in an inpatient environment with supervised challenges allows for initial evaluation of performance and safety of the system. Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) were enrolled into two similar studies (n = 10 per study), with 3-day inpatient analysis periods. Participants tested a Lilly hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system comprising an investigational insulin pump, insulin lispro, a pump-embedded model predictive control algorithm, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and an external dedicated controller. Each protocol included meal-related and exercise challenges to simulate real-world diabetes self-management errors. Only study staff interacted with the HCL system. Performance was assessed using standard CGM metrics overall and within prespecified periods. Results: Participants (25% male) had mean ± standard deviation (SD) age 44.7 ± 14.2 years, T1D duration 30.2 ± 11.1 years, A1C 7.2% ± 0.8%, and insulin usage 0.53 ± 0.21 U/(kg·day). Percentage TIR 70-180 mg/dL (mean ± SD) was 81.2 ± 8.4 overall, 85.2 ± 8.1 outside of challenge periods, 97.3 ± 5.3 during the nocturnal periods, and 74.5 ± 16.2 for the postprandial periods. During challenge periods, percentage TIR for the overbolus challenge was 65.4 ± 29.2 and that for the delayed bolus challenge was 57.1 ± 25.1. No adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or unanticipated adverse device events occurred while participants were using the HCL system. Conclusions: In participants with T1D, Lilly AID system demonstrated expected algorithm performance and safety with satisfactory glycemic outcomes overall and in response to simulated diabetes management challenges. Additional studies in less supervised conditions and with broader patient populations are warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number NCT03743285, NCT03849612.

Implementation of Basal-Bolus Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Bolus Insulin Delivery Using an Insulin Patch with an Insulin Pen.

Background: Barriers to mealtime insulin include complexity, fear of injections, and lifestyle interference. This multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated efficacy, safety, and self-reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, inadequately controlled on basal insulin, initiating and managing mealtime insulin with a wearable patch versus an insulin pen. Methods: Adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 278, age: 59.2 ± 8.9 years), were randomized to patch (n = 139) versus pen (n = 139) for 48 weeks, with crossover at week 44. Baseline insulin was divided 1:1 basal: bolus. Using a pattern-control logbook, subjects adjusted basal and bolus insulin weekly using fasting and premeal glucose targets. Results: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change (least squares mean ± standard error) from baseline to week 24 (primary endpoint) improved (P < 0.0001) in both arms, -1.7% ± 0.1% and -1.6% ± 0.1% for patch and pen (-18.6 ± 1.1 and -17.5 ± 1.1 mmol/mol), and was maintained at 44 weeks. The coefficient of variation of 7-point self-monitoring blood glucose decreased more (P = 0.02) from baseline to week 44 for patch versus pen. There were no differences in adverse events, including hypoglycemia (three severe episodes per arm), and changes in weight and insulin doses. Subject-reported treatment satisfaction, quality of life, experience ratings at week 24, and device preferences at week 48 significantly favored the patch. Most health care providers preferred patch for mealtime insulin. Conclusions: Bolus insulin delivered by patch and pen using an algorithm-based weekly insulin dose titration significantly improved HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes, with improved subject and health care provider experience and preference for the patch.

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and performance of the Guardian™ continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects 2-18 years of age (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 13.1 ± 3.9 years) with T1D and duration of diagnosis ≥1 year were enrolled at 11 sites in the United States and wore two Guardian Sensor 3 sensors in the abdomen and/or buttock. Sensors were connected to a transmitter paired with either a Guardian Connect system (i.e., mobile device with software application allowing display of sensor glucose [SG] values) or a Guardian Link 3 transmitter used as a Glucose Sensor Recorder (GSR). There were 145 participants who underwent a 6-h in-clinic frequent sample testing (FST) on day 1 (n = 54), day 3 (n = 48), or day 7 (n = 43) postsensor insertion. During FST, SG values were compared with a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) plasma reference every 5-15 min (n = 124, 7-18 years of age; n = 2, 2-6 years of age), or to a self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) reference every 5-30 min (n = 19, 2-6 years of age). RESULTS: The overall mean absolute relative difference (ARD ± SD) between SG and reference values (YSI or SMBG) when calibrating approximately every 12 h, was 10.9% ± 10.7% (3102 paired points) for sensors communicating with the Guardian Connect system and 11.1% ± 10.6% (2624 paired points) for sensors connected to the GSR. The overall percentage of SG values within ±20% of reference values >80 mg/dL or within 20 mg/dL of reference values ≤80 mg/dL was 87.8% for the Guardian Connect system and 86.7% for the GSR, respectively. There was one device-related adverse event of contact dermatitis, but no serious device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The Guardian CGM system demonstrated good accuracy in children and adolescents. These findings support its use in sensor-integrated insulin pump platforms, as well as a standalone technology, for managing diabetes in pediatric populations.

Investigation of the Accuracy of 18 Marketed Blood Glucose Monitors.

OBJECTIVE: Cleared blood glucose monitors (BGMs) for personal use may not always deliver levels of accuracy currently specified by international and U.S. regulatory bodies. This study's objective was to assess the accuracy of 18 such systems cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration representing approximately 90% of commercially available systems used from 2013 to 2015. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1,035 subjects were recruited to have a capillary blood glucose (BG) level measured on six different systems and a reference capillary sample prepared for plasma testing at a reference laboratory. Products were obtained from consumer outlets and tested in three triple-blinded studies. Each of the three participating clinical sites tested a different set of six systems for each of the three studies in a round-robin. In each study, on average, a BGM was tested on 115 subjects. A compliant BG result was defined as within 15% of a reference plasma value (for BG ≥100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]) or within 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) (for BG <100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). The proportion of compliant readings in each study was compared against a predetermined accuracy standard similar to, but more lenient than, current regulatory standards. Other metrics of accuracy included the overall compliance proportion; the proportion of extreme outlier readings differing from the reference value by >20%; modified Bland-Altman analysis including average bias, coefficient of variation, and 95% limits of agreement; and proportion of readings with no clinical risk as determined by the Surveillance Error Grid. RESULTS: The different accuracy metrics produced almost identical BGM rankings. Six of the 18 systems met the predetermined accuracy standard in all three studies, 5 systems met it in two studies, and 3 met it in one study. Four BGMs did not meet the accuracy standard in any of the three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Cleared BGMs do not always meet the level of analytical accuracy currently required for regulatory clearance. This information could assist patients, professionals, and payers in choosing products and regulators in evaluating postclearance performance.

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of the Accuracy of a Novel Implanted Continuous Glucose Sensor: PRECISE II.

BACKGROUND: Persistent use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves diabetes control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: PRECISE II was a nonrandomized, blinded, prospective, single-arm, multicenter study that evaluated the accuracy and safety of the implantable Eversense CGM system among adult participants with T1D and T2D (NCT02647905). The primary endpoint was the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between paired Eversense and Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) reference measurements through 90 days postinsertion for reference glucose values from 40 to 400 mg/dL. Additional endpoints included Clarke Error Grid analysis and sensor longevity. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of device-related or sensor insertion/removal procedure-related serious adverse events (SAEs) through 90 days postinsertion. RESULTS: Ninety participants received the CGM system. The overall MARD value against reference glucose values was 8.8% (95% confidence interval: 8.1%-9.3%), which was significantly lower than the prespecified 20% performance goal for accuracy (P < 0.0001). Ninety-three percent of CGM values were within 20/20% of reference values over the total glucose range of 40-400 mg/dL. Clarke Error Grid analysis showed 99.3% of samples in the clinically acceptable error zones A (92.8%) and B (6.5%). Ninety-one percent of sensors were functional through day 90. One related SAE (1.1%) occurred during the study for removal of a sensor. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE II trial demonstrated that the Eversense CGM system provided accurate glucose readings through the intended 90-day sensor life with a favorable safety profile.

The Effect of Prior Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use on Glycemic Outcomes in the Pivotal Trial of the MiniMed™ 670G Hybrid Closed-Loop System.

A 3-month pivotal trial using the MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system in adolescent and adult patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), relative to a 2-week baseline run-in period, resulted in increased sensor glucose (SG) values in target range (71-180 mg/dL), reduced HbA1c levels, and no events of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02463097). This brief report evaluated how prior continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) experience influenced glycemic outcomes, in the same pivotal trial. HbA1c levels and the percentage of SG values in low, high, and in-target ranges were analyzed from participants (n = 124) completing the Hybrid Closed-Loop Pivotal Trial in T1D. There were 78 individuals comprising the prior CGM group and 46 comprising the no prior CGM group. Compared to baseline, HbA1c was reduced from 7.4% ± 0.9% to 6.9% ± 0.7% for the prior CGM group and from 7.5% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.5% for the no prior CGM group. For those with prior CGM experience, the mean percentage of in-target SG values increased from 66.9% ± 12.5% to 72.6% ± 9.1%, and for those with no prior CGM experience it increased from 66.6% ± 11.7% to 71.5% ± 8.5%. Similar improvement in glucose values in the low and high ranges, relative to baseline, was observed for both groups. Resulting outcomes, from baseline to study end, did not differ between each group. These findings suggest that individuals without prior CGM experience, and those already using CGM, will benefit similarly with use of the FDA-approved MiniMed 670G HCL system therapy.

Accuracy of a Fourth-Generation Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Sensor.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy and performance of a fourth-generation subcutaneous glucose sensor (Guardian™ Sensor 3) in the abdomen and arm. METHODS: Eighty-eight subjects (14-75 years of age, mean ± standard deviation [SD] of 42.0 ± 19.1 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes participated in the study. Subjects wore two sensors in the abdomen that were paired with either a MiniMed™ 640G insulin pump, or an iPhone® or iPod® touch® running a glucose monitoring mobile application (Guardian Connect system) and a third sensor in the arm, which was connected to a glucose sensor recorder (GSR). Subjects were also asked to undergo in-clinic visits of 12-14 h on study days 1, 3, and 7 for frequent blood glucose sample testing using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) reference. RESULTS: The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD ± SD) between abdomen sensor glucose (SG) and YSI reference values was 9.6% ± 9.0% and 9.4% ± 9.8% for the MiniMed 640G insulin pump and Guardian Connect system, respectively; and 8.7% ± 8.0% between arm SG and YSI reference values. The percentage of SG values within 20% agreement of the YSI reference value (for YSI >80 mg/dL) was 90.7% with the MiniMed 640G insulin pump, 91.8% with the Guardian Connect system, and 93.1% for GSR-connected arm sensors. Mean functional sensor life, when calibrating 3-4 times/day, was 145.9 ± 39.3 h for sensors paired with the MiniMed 640G insulin pump, 146.1 ± 41.6 h for sensors paired with the Guardian Connect system, and 147.6 ± 40.4 h for sensors connected to the GSR. Responses to survey questions regarding sensor comfort and ease of use were favorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Guardian Sensor 3 glucose sensor, whether located in abdomen or the arm, provided accurate glucose readings when compared with the YSI reference and demonstrated functional life commensurate with the intended 7-day use. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02246582.

Evaluation of a Predictive Low-Glucose Management System In-Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Predictions based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data are the basis for automatic suspension and resumption of insulin delivery by a predictive low-glucose management feature termed "suspend before low," which is part of the Medtronic MiniMed® 640G combined insulin pump and CGM system. This study assessed the safety and performance characteristics of the system in an in-clinic setting at eight sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-clinic standardized increases in basal insulin delivery rates were used to induce nocturnal hypoglycemia in subjects (14-75 years) with type 1 diabetes wearing the MiniMed 640G system. The "suspend before low" feature was set at 65 mg/dL, and as a result, the predictive algorithm suspended insulin delivery when the forecasted glucose was predicted to be ≤85 mg/dL in 30 min (a 20 mg/dL safety buffer). Reference plasma glucose values (Yellow Springs Instruments [YSI], Yellow Springs, OH) were used to establish hypoglycemia and were defined as ≥2 consecutive values ≤65 mg/dL. RESULTS: Eighty subjects were screened. Among the 69 successful completers, 27 experienced a hypoglycemic event and 42 did not, a prevention rate of 60%. The mean (±standard deviation) YSI value at the time of pump suspension was 101 ± 18.5 mg/dL, and the mean duration of the 68 "suspend before low" events was 105 ± 27 min. At 120 min after the start of the pump suspension events, the mean YSI value was 102 ± 34.6 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: The MiniMed 640G "suspend before low" feature prevented 60% of induced predicted hypoglycemic events without significant rebound hyperglycemia.

Glucose Outcomes with the In-Home Use of a Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system that automatically increases, decreases, and suspends insulin delivery in response to continuous glucose monitoring were investigated. METHODS: Adolescents (n = 30, ages 14-21 years) and adults (n = 94, ages 22-75 years) with type 1 diabetes participated in a multicenter (nine sites in the United States, one site in Israel) pivotal trial. The Medtronic MiniMed® 670G system was used during a 2-week run-in phase without HCL control, or Auto Mode, enabled (Manual Mode) and, thereafter, with Auto Mode enabled during a 3-month study phase. A supervised hotel stay (6 days/5 nights) that included a 24-h frequent blood sample testing with a reference measurement (i-STAT) occurred during the study phase. RESULTS: Adolescents (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 16.5 ± 2.29 years of age and 7.7 ± 4.15 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 75.8% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.0%-88.4%) of the time (2977 patient-days). Adults (mean ± SD 44.6 ± 12.79 years of age and 26.4 ± 12.43 years of diabetes) used the system for a median 88.0% (IQR 77.6%-92.7%) of the time (9412 patient-days). From baseline run-in to the end of study phase, adolescent and adult HbA1c levels decreased from 7.7% ± 0.8% to 7.1% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 7.3% ± 0.9% to 6.8% ± 0.6% (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), respectively. The proportion of overall in-target (71-180 mg/dL) sensor glucose (SG) values increased from 60.4% ± 10.9% to 67.2% ± 8.2% (P < 0.001) in adolescents and from 68.8% ± 11.9% to 73.8% ± 8.4% (P < 0.001) in adults. During the hotel stay, the proportion of in-target i-STAT® blood glucose values was 67.4% ± 27.7% compared to SG values of 72.0% ± 11.6% for adolescents and 74.2% ± 17.5% compared to 76.9% ± 8.3% for adults. There were no severe hypoglycemic or diabetic ketoacidosis events in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: HCL therapy was safe during in-home use by adolescents and adults and the study phase demonstrated increased time in target, and reductions in HbA1c, hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, compared to baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02463097.

Accuracy evaluation of contour next compared with five blood glucose monitoring systems across a wide range of blood glucose concentrations occurring in a clinical research setting.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy of Contour(®) Next (CN; Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Whippany, NJ) compared with five blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) across a wide range of clinically occurring blood glucose levels. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects (n=146) were ≥ 18 years and had type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Subjects' glucose levels were safely lowered or raised to provide a wide range of glucose values. Capillary blood samples were tested on six BGMSs and a YSI glucose analyzer (YSI Life Sciences, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) as the reference. Extreme glucose values were achieved by glucose modification of the blood sample. System accuracy was assessed by mean absolute difference (MAD) and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) across several glucose ranges, with <70 mg/dL evaluated by MAD as the primary end point. RESULTS: In the low glucose range (<70 mg/dL), MAD values were as follows: Accu-Chek(®) Aviva Nano (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN), 3.34 mg/dL; CN, 2.03 mg/dL; FreeStyle Lite(®) (FSL; Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Alameda, CA), 2.77 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Ultra(®) 2 (LifeScan, Inc., Milpitas, CA), 10.20 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Verio(®) Pro (LifeScan, Inc.), 4.53 mg/dL; and Truetrack(®) (Nipro Diagnostics, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL), 11.08 mg/dL. The lowest MAD in the low glucose range, from CN, was statistically significantly lower than those of the other BGMSs with the exception of the FSL. CN also had a statistically significantly lower MARD than all other BGMSs in the low glucose range. In the overall glucose range (21-496 mg/dL), CN yielded the lowest MAD and MARD values, which were statistically significantly lower in comparison with the other BGMSs. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with other BGMSs, CN demonstrated the lowest mean deviation from the reference value (by MAD and MARD) across multiple glucose ranges.

Accuracy and acceptability of the 6-day Enlite continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance and acceptability of the Enlite(®) glucose sensor (Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Northridge, CA). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes wore two Enlite sensors on the abdomen and/or buttock for 6 days and calibrated them at different frequencies. On Days 1, 3, and 6, accuracy was evaluated by comparison of sensor glucose values with frequently sampled plasma glucose values collected over a 12-h period. Accuracy was assessed at different reference glucose concentrations and during times when absolute glucose concentration rates of change were <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min. The sensor's ability to detect hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was evaluated with simulated alerts. Subject satisfaction was evaluated with a 7-point Likert-type questionnaire, with a score of 7 indicating strong agreement. RESULTS: With abdomen sensors under actual-use calibration (mean, 2.8 ± 0.9 times/day), the overall mean (median) absolute relative difference (ARD) values between sensor and reference values were 13.6% (10.1%); the corresponding buttock sensor ARD values were 15.5% (10.5%). With abdomen sensors under minimal calibration (mean, 1.2 ± 0.9 times/day), the mean (median) ARD values were 14.7% (10.8%). Mean ARD values of abdomen sensors at rates of change of <1, 1-2, and >2 mg/dL/min were 13.6%, 12.9%, and 16.3%, respectively. With abdomen sensors, 79.5% and 94.1% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, respectively, were correctly detected; 81.9% and 94.9% of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic alerts, respectively, were confirmed. The failure rates for abdomen and buttock sensors were 19.7% and 13.9%, respectively. Mean responses to survey questions for all subjects related to comfort and ease of use were favorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite sensor provided accurate data at different glucose concentrations and rates of change. Subjects found the sensor comfortable and easy to use.

Hypoglycemia begets hypoglycemia: the order effect in the ASPIRE in-clinic study.

BACKGROUND: The ASPIRE in-clinic study established that automatic suspension of insulin with the threshold suspend (TS) feature reduces the duration of induced hypoglycemia. The study's crossover design allowed the effects of antecedent hypoglycemia to be studied. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study enrolled 50 subjects who exercised until plasma glucose (YSI glucose and lactate analyzer; YSI, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) reached ≤85 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was evaluated after the YSI value reached <70 mg/dL. In TS experiments, insulin was stopped for 2 h once a sensor glucose (SG) value of ≤70 mg/dL was detected; in control experiments, basal insulin delivery continued. Subjects were randomly assigned to Group A (TS in Period 1; control in Period 2) or Group B (control in Period 1; TS in Period 2). Experiments were separated by 3-10 days. RESULTS: Hypoglycemia was 63.7 min shorter in Period 1 TS experiments (no preceding control experiment) than in Period 2 TS experiments (one or more preceding control experiment(s)) (P<0.01). The number of experiments prior to a successful TS experiment was lower for Period 1 than for Period 2 (0.36 ± 0.64 vs. 1.57 ± 0.84; P<0.001), as was the cumulative duration of antecedent hypoglycemia (16.6 min vs. 204.6 min; P<0.001). The between-groups difference in hypoglycemia duration was not attributable to differences in SG rates of change, the duration of exercise, or area under the curve of <70 mg/dL × min in the 2 days before the successful experiment (all P>0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The TS feature's ability to mitigate hypoglycemia was decreased by an episode or episodes of prolonged antecedent hypoglycemia, suggesting hypoglycemia begets hypoglycemia. The effect of antecedent hypoglycemia should be taken into consideration in the design of future experiments assessing strategies to reduce hypoglycemia.

Clinical evaluation of the FreeStyle Precision Pro system.

BACKGROUND: A new version of international standard (ISO 15197) and CLSI Guideline (POCT12) with more stringent accuracy criteria are near publication. We evaluated the glucose test performance of the FreeStyle Precision Pro system, a new blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) designed to enhance accuracy for point-of-care testing (POCT). METHODS: Precision, interference and system accuracy with 503 blood samples from capillary, venous and arterial sources were evaluated in a multicenter study. Study results were analyzed and presented in accordance with the specifications and recommendations of the final draft ISO 15197 and the new POCT12. RESULTS: The FreeStyle Precision Pro system demonstrated acceptable precision (CV <5%), no interference across a hematocrit range of 15-65%, and, except for xylose, no interference from 24 of 25 potentially interfering substances. It also met all accuracy criteria specified in the final draft ISO 15197 and POCT12, with 97.3-98.9% of the individual results of various blood sample types agreeing within ±12 mg/dl of the laboratory analyzer values at glucose concentrations <100mg/dl and within ±12.5% of the laboratory analyzer values at glucose concentrations ≥100 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: The FreeStyle Precision Pro system met the tighter accuracy requirements, providing a means for enhancing accuracy for point-of-care blood glucose monitoring.