Jeffrey T La Belle1, Erica Engelschall2, Kenneth Lan2, Pankti Shah2, Neil Saez2, Stephanie Maxwell2, Teagan Adamson2, Michelle Abou-Eid2, Kenyon McAferty2, Dharmendra R Patel3, Curtiss B Cook4. 1. Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Harrington Program of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA jeffrey.labelle@asu.edu. 2. Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Harrington Program of Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 4. Divisions of Endocrinology and of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A prototype tear glucose (TG) sensor was tested in New Zealand white rabbits to assess eye irritation, blood glucose (BG) and TG lag time, and correlation with BG. METHODS: A total of 4 animals were used. Eye irritation was monitored by Lissamine green dye and analyzed using image analysis software. Lag time was correlated with an oral glucose load while recording TG and BG readings. Correlation between TG and BG were plotted against one another to form a correlation diagram, using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose as the reference measurements. Finally, TG levels were calculated using analytically derived expressions. RESULTS: From repeated testing carried over the course of 12 months, little to no eye irritation was detected. TG fluctuations over time visually appeared to trace the same pattern as BG with an average lag times of 13 minutes. TG levels calculated from the device current measurements ranged from 4 to 20 mg/dL and correlated linearly with BG levels of 75-160 mg/dL (TG = 0.1723 BG = 7.9448 mg/dL; R2 = .7544). CONCLUSION: The first steps were taken toward preliminary development of a sensor for self-monitoring of tear glucose (SMTG). No conjunctival irritation in any of the animals was noted. Lag time between TG and BG was found to be noticeable, but a quantitative modeling to correlate lag time in this study is unnecessary. Measured currents from the sensors and the calculated TG showed promising correlation to BG levels. Previous analytical bench marking showed BG and TG levels consistent with other literature.
OBJECTIVE: A prototype tear glucose (TG) sensor was tested in New Zealand white rabbits to assess eye irritation, blood glucose (BG) and TG lag time, and correlation with BG. METHODS: A total of 4 animals were used. Eye irritation was monitored by Lissamine green dye and analyzed using image analysis software. Lag time was correlated with an oral glucose load while recording TG and BG readings. Correlation between TG and BG were plotted against one another to form a correlation diagram, using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose as the reference measurements. Finally, TG levels were calculated using analytically derived expressions. RESULTS: From repeated testing carried over the course of 12 months, little to no eye irritation was detected. TG fluctuations over time visually appeared to trace the same pattern as BG with an average lag times of 13 minutes. TG levels calculated from the device current measurements ranged from 4 to 20 mg/dL and correlated linearly with BG levels of 75-160 mg/dL (TG = 0.1723 BG = 7.9448 mg/dL; R2 = .7544). CONCLUSION: The first steps were taken toward preliminary development of a sensor for self-monitoring of tear glucose (SMTG). No conjunctival irritation in any of the animals was noted. Lag time between TG and BG was found to be noticeable, but a quantitative modeling to correlate lag time in this study is unnecessary. Measured currents from the sensors and the calculated TG showed promising correlation to BG levels. Previous analytical bench marking showed BG and TG levels consistent with other literature.
Authors: Goodarz Danaei; Mariel M Finucane; Yuan Lu; Gitanjali M Singh; Melanie J Cowan; Christopher J Paciorek; John K Lin; Farshad Farzadfar; Young-Ho Khang; Gretchen A Stevens; Mayuree Rao; Mohammed K Ali; Leanne M Riley; Carolyn A Robinson; Majid Ezzati Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chi En Lin; Yuka Ito; Anna Deng; Jared Johns; Daniel Matloff; Curtiss B Cook; Koji Sode; Jeffrey T La Belle Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2018-04-18
Authors: Yirui Xue; Angelika S Thalmayer; Samuel Zeising; Georg Fischer; Maximilian Lübke Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.576