CareSens Air CGM系统手动和更新可选校准算法的性能比较分析。

IF 3.7 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Nina Jendrike, Manuel Eichenlaub, Manuela Link, Sükrü Öter, Anne Beltzer, Marta Gil Miró, Cornelia Haug, Jung Hee Seo, Moon Hwan Kim, Stefan Pleus, Guido Freckmann
{"title":"CareSens Air CGM系统手动和更新可选校准算法的性能比较分析。","authors":"Nina Jendrike, Manuel Eichenlaub, Manuela Link, Sükrü Öter, Anne Beltzer, Marta Gil Miró, Cornelia Haug, Jung Hee Seo, Moon Hwan Kim, Stefan Pleus, Guido Freckmann","doi":"10.1177/19322968251351318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CE-marked CareSens Air continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (CSAir) features a 15-day sensor lifetime, a 2-hour warm-up period and mandatory manual calibrations. During subsequent product development, the algorithm was updated to reduce the warm-up period to 30 minutes and make user-entered calibrations optional. This study compared the CSAir's performance between the manual and updated algorithms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty adults with diabetes wore three CSAir sensors on their upper arms for 15 days. The study included three in-clinic sessions with capillary comparator measurements at 15-minute intervals over seven hours and glucose manipulation in the hypo- or hyperglycemic range. Point accuracy was assessed via mean absolute relative difference (MARD), 20/20 agreement rates (AR) stratified by BG range, and sensor wear time. Further evaluations included clinical point accuracy, alert reliability, technical reliability, safety and user satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CSAir's updated algorithm exhibited improved accuracy compared with the manual calibration algorithm, with a total 20/20 AR of 93.9% (vs 90.1%) and an MARD of 8.7% (vs 9.9%). Accuracy remained stable across measurement ranges and sensor lifetime. Diabetes Technology Society Error Grid analysis revealed high clinical accuracy, with 88.0% and 92.4% of data pairs in zone A for the manual and updated algorithms, respectively. The estimated survival probability was 88.8%. Participants reported positive user satisfaction. No safety concerns were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both algorithms of CSAir demonstrated robust performance and reliability with improved accuracy with the updated version. The study results of the CSAir suggest its suitability for nonadjunctive use.</p>","PeriodicalId":15475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"19322968251351318"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12226519/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Performance Analysis of Manual and Updated Optional Calibration Algorithms for the CareSens Air CGM System.\",\"authors\":\"Nina Jendrike, Manuel Eichenlaub, Manuela Link, Sükrü Öter, Anne Beltzer, Marta Gil Miró, Cornelia Haug, Jung Hee Seo, Moon Hwan Kim, Stefan Pleus, Guido Freckmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19322968251351318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CE-marked CareSens Air continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (CSAir) features a 15-day sensor lifetime, a 2-hour warm-up period and mandatory manual calibrations. During subsequent product development, the algorithm was updated to reduce the warm-up period to 30 minutes and make user-entered calibrations optional. This study compared the CSAir's performance between the manual and updated algorithms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty adults with diabetes wore three CSAir sensors on their upper arms for 15 days. The study included three in-clinic sessions with capillary comparator measurements at 15-minute intervals over seven hours and glucose manipulation in the hypo- or hyperglycemic range. Point accuracy was assessed via mean absolute relative difference (MARD), 20/20 agreement rates (AR) stratified by BG range, and sensor wear time. Further evaluations included clinical point accuracy, alert reliability, technical reliability, safety and user satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CSAir's updated algorithm exhibited improved accuracy compared with the manual calibration algorithm, with a total 20/20 AR of 93.9% (vs 90.1%) and an MARD of 8.7% (vs 9.9%). Accuracy remained stable across measurement ranges and sensor lifetime. Diabetes Technology Society Error Grid analysis revealed high clinical accuracy, with 88.0% and 92.4% of data pairs in zone A for the manual and updated algorithms, respectively. The estimated survival probability was 88.8%. Participants reported positive user satisfaction. No safety concerns were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both algorithms of CSAir demonstrated robust performance and reliability with improved accuracy with the updated version. The study results of the CSAir suggest its suitability for nonadjunctive use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"19322968251351318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12226519/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968251351318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968251351318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:ce认证的CareSens Air连续血糖监测(CGM)系统(CSAir)具有15天的传感器使用寿命,2小时的预热期和强制手动校准。在随后的产品开发过程中,该算法进行了更新,将预热时间缩短至30分钟,并可选择用户输入校准。本研究比较了手动算法和更新算法的CSAir性能。方法:30名成年糖尿病患者在上臂佩戴3个CSAir传感器15天。该研究包括三个临床阶段,在7小时内每隔15分钟进行一次毛细血管比较仪测量,并在低血糖或高血糖范围内进行葡萄糖控制。通过平均绝对相对差(MARD)、按BG范围分层的20/20一致性率(AR)和传感器磨损时间来评估点精度。进一步的评价包括临床点准确性、警报可靠性、技术可靠性、安全性和用户满意度。结果:与手动校准算法相比,CSAir的更新算法显示出更高的精度,总20/20 AR为93.9% (vs . 90.1%), MARD为8.7% (vs . 9.9%)。在测量范围和传感器寿命范围内,精度保持稳定。糖尿病技术学会误差网格分析显示了较高的临床准确性,手动算法和更新算法在A区分别有88.0%和92.4%的数据对。估计生存率为88.8%。参与者报告了积极的用户满意度。没有发现安全隐患。结论:CSAir的两种算法均表现出稳健的性能和可靠性,更新后的版本准确性有所提高。CSAir的研究结果表明其适合于非辅助使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Performance Analysis of Manual and Updated Optional Calibration Algorithms for the CareSens Air CGM System.

Background: The CE-marked CareSens Air continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (CSAir) features a 15-day sensor lifetime, a 2-hour warm-up period and mandatory manual calibrations. During subsequent product development, the algorithm was updated to reduce the warm-up period to 30 minutes and make user-entered calibrations optional. This study compared the CSAir's performance between the manual and updated algorithms.

Methods: Thirty adults with diabetes wore three CSAir sensors on their upper arms for 15 days. The study included three in-clinic sessions with capillary comparator measurements at 15-minute intervals over seven hours and glucose manipulation in the hypo- or hyperglycemic range. Point accuracy was assessed via mean absolute relative difference (MARD), 20/20 agreement rates (AR) stratified by BG range, and sensor wear time. Further evaluations included clinical point accuracy, alert reliability, technical reliability, safety and user satisfaction.

Results: The CSAir's updated algorithm exhibited improved accuracy compared with the manual calibration algorithm, with a total 20/20 AR of 93.9% (vs 90.1%) and an MARD of 8.7% (vs 9.9%). Accuracy remained stable across measurement ranges and sensor lifetime. Diabetes Technology Society Error Grid analysis revealed high clinical accuracy, with 88.0% and 92.4% of data pairs in zone A for the manual and updated algorithms, respectively. The estimated survival probability was 88.8%. Participants reported positive user satisfaction. No safety concerns were identified.

Conclusions: Both algorithms of CSAir demonstrated robust performance and reliability with improved accuracy with the updated version. The study results of the CSAir suggest its suitability for nonadjunctive use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
12.00%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a bi-monthly, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Diabetes Technology Society. JDST covers scientific and clinical aspects of diabetes technology including glucose monitoring, insulin and metabolic peptide delivery, the artificial pancreas, digital health, precision medicine, social media, cybersecurity, software for modeling, physiologic monitoring, technology for managing obesity, and diagnostic tests of glycation. The journal also covers the development and use of mobile applications and wireless communication, as well as bioengineered tools such as MEMS, new biomaterials, and nanotechnology to develop new sensors. Articles in JDST cover both basic research and clinical applications of technologies being developed to help people with diabetes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信