Comparison of CGM (Continuous Glucose Monitoring) Accuracy with BGEM (Blood Glucose Evaluation Monitoring)

Overview

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Blood Glucose Evaluation Monitoring (BGEM) are two technologies designed to help individuals monitor their glucose levels. CGM systems, such as FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom, continuously measure glucose levels in the interstitial fluid, whereas BGEM, as implemented by Synqlux, leverages advanced algorithms and AI to estimate blood glucose levels non-invasively.

Accuracy of CGM Systems

CGM Systems (e.g., FreeStyle Libre, Dexcom):

  1. Measurement Method:

    • CGM systems measure glucose in the interstitial fluid. The readings correlate closely with blood glucose but include a lag of about 5-10 minutes.

  2. Accuracy Metrics:

    • CGM systems typically report accuracy in terms of Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD). The MARD for popular CGM systems like FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom is around 9-10% .
    • Regular calibration can improve accuracy, although some systems like FreeStyle Libre are factory-calibrated.

  3. Clinical Validation:

    • Multiple clinical studies validate the accuracy of CGM systems. For instance, Dexcom's G6 CGM has been shown to have a MARD of 9% in clinical trials .

  4. User Experience:

    • Users find CGM systems to be highly reliable, especially for trend monitoring and making day-to-day diabetes management decisions.

Accuracy of BGEM Technology

BGEM Technology (e.g., Synqlux Smart Ring):

  1. Measurement Method:

    • BGEM technology in devices like the Synqlux Smart Ring uses a combination of photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors and AI algorithms to estimate blood glucose levels. It typically requires manual initiation of measurements and answers to contextual questions (e.g., last meal time).

  2. Accuracy Metrics:

    • BGEM systems' accuracy is generally expressed in terms of their ability to identify glucose levels within certain risk thresholds rather than providing continuous, real-time measurements. The accuracy of these measurements is considered around 85%, which is factored into the AI algorithms to enhance reliability.

  3. Clinical Validation:

    • While BGEM technology is innovative, it is not yet as widely clinically validated as traditional CGM systems. However, it offers a non-invasive alternative that can be useful for trend monitoring and initial risk assessments.

  4. User Experience:

    • Users of BGEM devices benefit from the non-invasive nature and the convenience of not requiring finger pricks or sensor insertions. However, because BGEM devices like the Synqlux Smart Ring are not classified as medical devices, they are recommended for trend monitoring rather than precise medical diagnosis.

Key Differences

  1. Measurement Frequency:

    • CGM: Provides continuous, real-time glucose monitoring, which is crucial for managing diabetes on a minute-to-minute basis.
    • BGEM: Provides periodic measurements initiated by the user, which can be useful for overall trend analysis but not for continuous monitoring.

  2. Invasiveness:

    • CGM: Involves minimally invasive sensor insertions under the skin.
    • BGEM: Non-invasive, using PPG sensors and AI algorithms to estimate glucose levels.

  3. Use Case:

    • CGM: Ideal for individuals who need constant glucose level monitoring and are managing diabetes intensively.
    • BGEM: Suitable for individuals at risk of diabetes or those who need to monitor trends without the need for constant monitoring.

  4. Regulatory Approval:

    • CGM: Widely approved by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA.
    • BGEM: While innovative, BGEM devices are typically not classified as medical devices and hence do not have the same level of regulatory approval.

Conclusion

Both CGM and BGEM technologies offer valuable tools for glucose monitoring, but they serve slightly different purposes. CGM systems provide highly accurate, continuous monitoring suitable for intensive diabetes management, backed by extensive clinical validation. BGEM technology, on the other hand, offers a convenient, non-invasive alternative for periodic monitoring and risk assessment, making it particularly appealing for those at risk of diabetes or those seeking a less invasive option for trend analysis.

References

Back to blog