Performance Comparison of the Medtronic Sof-Sensor and Enlite Glucose Sensors in Inpatient Studies of Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes

Jaeb Center for Health Research , Tampa, Florida.
Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics (Impact Factor: 2.11). 05/2013; 15(9). DOI: 10.1089/dia.2013.0042
Source: PubMed


Knowledge of the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices is important for its use as a management tool for individuals with diabetes and for its use to assess outcomes in clinical studies. Using data from several inpatient studies, we compared the accuracy of two sensors, the Medtronic Enlite™ using MiniMed Paradigm(®) Veo™ calibration and the Sof-Sensor(®) glucose sensor using Guardian(®) REAL-Time CGM calibration (all from Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA).

Subjects and methods:
Nocturnal data were analyzed from eight inpatient studies in which both CGM and reference glucose measurements were available. The analyses included 1,666 CGM-reference paired glucose values for the Enlite in 54 participants over 69 nights and 3,627 paired values for the Sof-Sensor in 66 participants over 91 nights.

The Enlite sensor tended to report glucose levels lower than the reference over the entire range of glucose values, whereas the Sof-Sensor values tended to be higher than reference values in the hypoglycemic range and lower than reference values in the hyperglycemic range. The overall median sensor-reference difference was -15 mg/dL for the Enlite and -1 mg/dL for the Sof-Sensor (P<0.001). The median relative absolute difference was 15% for the Enlite versus 12% for the Sof-Sensor (P=0.06); 66% of Enlite values and 73% of Sof-Sensor values met International Organization for Standardization criteria.

We found that the Enlite tended to be biased low over the entire glucose range, whereas the Sof-Sensor showed the more typical sensor pattern of being biased high in the hypoglycemic range and biased low in the hyperglycemic range.

1 Follower
57 Reads

  • Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 01/2014; 16(5). DOI:10.1089/dia.2013.0286 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 05/2014; 16(5):277-83. DOI:10.1089/dia.2013.0222 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system consisting of a wireless, subcutaneously implantable glucose sensor and a body-worn transmitter is described and clinical performance over a 28 day implant period in 12 type 1 diabetic patients is reported. The implantable sensor is constructed of a fluorescent, boronic-acid based glucose indicating polymer coated onto a miniaturized, polymer-encased optical detection system. The external transmitter wirelessly communicates with and powers the sensor and contains Bluetooth capability for interfacing with a Smartphone application. The accuracy of 19 implanted sensors were evaluated over 28 days during 6 in-clinic sessions by comparing the CGM glucose values to venous blood glucose measurements taken every 15min. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for all sensors was 11.6±0.7%, and Clarke error grid analysis showed that 99% of paired data points were in the combined A and B zones.
    Biosensors & Bioelectronics 05/2014; 61C:227-231. DOI:10.1016/j.bios.2014.05.022 · 6.41 Impact Factor
Show more