Dexcom G6 Pro和G7连续血糖监测仪在维持性透析患者中的准确性。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Leila R Zelnick, Subbulaxmi Trikudanathan, Yoshio N Hall, Ernest Ayers, Lisa Anderson, Nathaniel Ashford, Evelin Jones, Andrew N Hoofnagle, Ian H de Boer, Irl B Hirsch
{"title":"Dexcom G6 Pro和G7连续血糖监测仪在维持性透析患者中的准确性。","authors":"Leila R Zelnick, Subbulaxmi Trikudanathan, Yoshio N Hall, Ernest Ayers, Lisa Anderson, Nathaniel Ashford, Evelin Jones, Andrew N Hoofnagle, Ian H de Boer, Irl B Hirsch","doi":"10.1177/15209156251368934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background and Aims:</i></b> Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can comprehensively assess glycemic patterns in patients treated with dialysis, in whom conventional biomarkers such as glycated hemoglobin are inaccurate. Nonetheless, adoption of recent versions of CGMs in this population has been complicated by concerns about interstitial volume expansion, interfering substances, and effects of dialysis treatment. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of the G6 Pro and G7 CGM systems (Dexcom, Inc.) compared with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in a dialysis population. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twelve participants treated with maintenance dialysis (11 hemodialysis, 1 peritoneal dialysis [PD]) with diabetes wore concurrent G6 Pro and G7 CGMs for a period of 10 days, during which they measured SMBG using a Contour Next glucometer. We summarized CGM-glucometer Pearson correlations, calculated the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of G6 Pro/G7 and SMBG, created Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) error grids, and investigated the CGM lag time that most closely corresponded with SMBG. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 50 (12) years, 50% were female, mean (SD) diabetes duration was 24 (9) years, and 92% used insulin. Participants collected 245 SMBG measurements over a total of 178 days of CGM. The Pearson correlations of G6 Pro and SMBG, G7 and SMBG, and G6 Pro and G7 were 0.87, 0.88, and 0.95, respectively. The MARDs of G6 Pro versus SMBG and G7 versus SMBG were 21.2% and 16.7%, respectively; excluding one PD participant with highly variable glucose, MARDs were 18.3% and 13.5%. The DTS error grids showed that 96.7% of G6 Pro and 98.0% of G7 measurements were clinically acceptable (Zones A/B) when compared with SMBG. We observed evidence of greater lag times than previously seen in nondialysis populations and substantial between- and within-person variability in CGM performance. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Among patients with diabetes treated with maintenance dialysis, CGM measurements of glucose had high correlation with SMBG, with better performance of the G7 compared with G6 Pro. MARD was higher than previously reported in nondialysis populations, but most values fell within clinically acceptable ranges. While issues around lag time, sensor placement, and interfering substances that may impact CGM performance warrant further investigation, our study findings support the use of CGM to evaluate glycemia in the dialysis population.</p>","PeriodicalId":11159,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Pro and G7 Continuous Glucose Monitors in Patients Treated with Maintenance Dialysis.\",\"authors\":\"Leila R Zelnick, Subbulaxmi Trikudanathan, Yoshio N Hall, Ernest Ayers, Lisa Anderson, Nathaniel Ashford, Evelin Jones, Andrew N Hoofnagle, Ian H de Boer, Irl B Hirsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15209156251368934\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background and Aims:</i></b> Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can comprehensively assess glycemic patterns in patients treated with dialysis, in whom conventional biomarkers such as glycated hemoglobin are inaccurate. Nonetheless, adoption of recent versions of CGMs in this population has been complicated by concerns about interstitial volume expansion, interfering substances, and effects of dialysis treatment. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of the G6 Pro and G7 CGM systems (Dexcom, Inc.) compared with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in a dialysis population. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twelve participants treated with maintenance dialysis (11 hemodialysis, 1 peritoneal dialysis [PD]) with diabetes wore concurrent G6 Pro and G7 CGMs for a period of 10 days, during which they measured SMBG using a Contour Next glucometer. We summarized CGM-glucometer Pearson correlations, calculated the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of G6 Pro/G7 and SMBG, created Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) error grids, and investigated the CGM lag time that most closely corresponded with SMBG. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 50 (12) years, 50% were female, mean (SD) diabetes duration was 24 (9) years, and 92% used insulin. Participants collected 245 SMBG measurements over a total of 178 days of CGM. The Pearson correlations of G6 Pro and SMBG, G7 and SMBG, and G6 Pro and G7 were 0.87, 0.88, and 0.95, respectively. The MARDs of G6 Pro versus SMBG and G7 versus SMBG were 21.2% and 16.7%, respectively; excluding one PD participant with highly variable glucose, MARDs were 18.3% and 13.5%. The DTS error grids showed that 96.7% of G6 Pro and 98.0% of G7 measurements were clinically acceptable (Zones A/B) when compared with SMBG. We observed evidence of greater lag times than previously seen in nondialysis populations and substantial between- and within-person variability in CGM performance. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Among patients with diabetes treated with maintenance dialysis, CGM measurements of glucose had high correlation with SMBG, with better performance of the G7 compared with G6 Pro. MARD was higher than previously reported in nondialysis populations, but most values fell within clinically acceptable ranges. While issues around lag time, sensor placement, and interfering substances that may impact CGM performance warrant further investigation, our study findings support the use of CGM to evaluate glycemia in the dialysis population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes technology & therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15209156251368934\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15209156251368934","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:连续血糖监测仪(cgm)可以全面评估透析患者的血糖模式,在这些患者中,传统的生物标志物如糖化血红蛋白是不准确的。然而,由于对间质体积扩张、干扰物质和透析治疗效果的担忧,在这一人群中采用最新版本的cgm变得复杂。本研究旨在检验G6 Pro和G7 CGM系统(Dexcom, Inc.)在透析人群中与自我监测血糖(SMBG)相比的准确性。方法:12名接受维持性透析治疗的糖尿病患者(11名血液透析,1名腹膜透析[PD])同时使用G6 Pro和G7 cgm,持续10天,在此期间,他们使用Contour Next血糖仪测量SMBG。我们总结了CGM-血糖仪Pearson相关性,计算了G6 Pro/G7与SMBG的平均绝对相对差(MARD),创建了糖尿病技术协会(DTS)误差网格,并研究了与SMBG最接近的CGM滞后时间。结果:参与者的平均(标准差[SD])年龄为50(12)岁,50%为女性,平均(SD)糖尿病病程为24(9)年,92%使用胰岛素。参与者在总共178天的CGM中收集了245个SMBG测量值。G6 Pro与SMBG、G7与SMBG、G6 Pro与G7的Pearson相关系数分别为0.87、0.88、0.95。G6 Pro与SMBG、G7与SMBG的MARDs分别为21.2%和16.7%;排除一名血糖高度可变的PD患者,mard分别为18.3%和13.5%。DTS误差网格显示,与SMBG相比,96.7%的G6 Pro和98.0%的G7测量值是临床可接受的(A/B区)。我们在非透析人群中观察到比以前更大的滞后时间,并且在CGM表现上存在很大的人与人之间和人与人之间的差异。结论:在接受维持性透析治疗的糖尿病患者中,CGM测量的葡萄糖与SMBG高度相关,与G6 Pro相比,G7的表现更好。非透析人群的MARD高于先前报道,但大多数值在临床可接受范围内。虽然延迟时间、传感器放置和干扰物质等可能影响CGM性能的问题需要进一步调查,但我们的研究结果支持使用CGM来评估透析人群的血糖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Pro and G7 Continuous Glucose Monitors in Patients Treated with Maintenance Dialysis.

Background and Aims: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can comprehensively assess glycemic patterns in patients treated with dialysis, in whom conventional biomarkers such as glycated hemoglobin are inaccurate. Nonetheless, adoption of recent versions of CGMs in this population has been complicated by concerns about interstitial volume expansion, interfering substances, and effects of dialysis treatment. This study aimed to examine the accuracy of the G6 Pro and G7 CGM systems (Dexcom, Inc.) compared with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in a dialysis population. Methods: Twelve participants treated with maintenance dialysis (11 hemodialysis, 1 peritoneal dialysis [PD]) with diabetes wore concurrent G6 Pro and G7 CGMs for a period of 10 days, during which they measured SMBG using a Contour Next glucometer. We summarized CGM-glucometer Pearson correlations, calculated the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of G6 Pro/G7 and SMBG, created Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) error grids, and investigated the CGM lag time that most closely corresponded with SMBG. Results: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 50 (12) years, 50% were female, mean (SD) diabetes duration was 24 (9) years, and 92% used insulin. Participants collected 245 SMBG measurements over a total of 178 days of CGM. The Pearson correlations of G6 Pro and SMBG, G7 and SMBG, and G6 Pro and G7 were 0.87, 0.88, and 0.95, respectively. The MARDs of G6 Pro versus SMBG and G7 versus SMBG were 21.2% and 16.7%, respectively; excluding one PD participant with highly variable glucose, MARDs were 18.3% and 13.5%. The DTS error grids showed that 96.7% of G6 Pro and 98.0% of G7 measurements were clinically acceptable (Zones A/B) when compared with SMBG. We observed evidence of greater lag times than previously seen in nondialysis populations and substantial between- and within-person variability in CGM performance. Conclusions: Among patients with diabetes treated with maintenance dialysis, CGM measurements of glucose had high correlation with SMBG, with better performance of the G7 compared with G6 Pro. MARD was higher than previously reported in nondialysis populations, but most values fell within clinically acceptable ranges. While issues around lag time, sensor placement, and interfering substances that may impact CGM performance warrant further investigation, our study findings support the use of CGM to evaluate glycemia in the dialysis population.

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
Diabetes technology & therapeutics
Diabetes technology & therapeutics 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
14.80%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics is the only peer-reviewed journal providing healthcare professionals with information on new devices, drugs, drug delivery systems, and software for managing patients with diabetes. This leading international journal delivers practical information and comprehensive coverage of cutting-edge technologies and therapeutics in the field, and each issue highlights new pharmacological and device developments to optimize patient care.
×
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