Background: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is being rapidly adopted as standard of care for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. The PROMISE study (NCT03808376) evaluated the accuracy and safety of the next-generation implantable Eversense CGM system for up to 180 days. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter study involving 181 subjects with diabetes at 8 USA sites. All subjects were inserted with a primary sensor. Ninety-six subjects had a second sensor, either an identical sensor or a modified sensor (sacrificial boronic acid [SBA]), inserted in their other arm (53 and 43 subjects, respectively). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing CGM to YSI 2300 glucose analyzer (Yellow Springs Instrument [YSI]) values during 10 clinic visits (day 1-180). Confirmed event detection rates, calibration stability, sensor survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated. Results: For primary sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 92.9%; overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 9.1%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 93% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 56%. Sixty-five percent of the primary sensors survived to 180 days. For the SBA sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 93.9%; overall MARD was 8.5%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 94% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 63%. Ninety percent of the SBA sensors survived to 180 days. No device- or insertion/removal procedure-related SAEs were reported. Conclusion: These data show the next-generation Eversense CGM system had sustained accuracy and safety up to 180 days, with an improved calibration scheme and survival, using the primary or SBA sensors.
Background: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is being rapidly adopted as standard of care for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. The PROMISE study (NCT03808376) evaluated the accuracy and safety of the next-generation implantable Eversense CGM system for up to 180 days. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter study involving 181 subjects with diabetes at 8 USA sites. All subjects were inserted with a primary sensor. Ninety-six subjects had a second sensor, either an identical sensor or a modified sensor (sacrificial boronic acid [SBA]), inserted in their other arm (53 and 43 subjects, respectively). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing CGM to YSI 2300 glucose analyzer (Yellow Springs Instrument [YSI]) values during 10 clinic visits (day 1-180). Confirmed event detection rates, calibration stability, sensor survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated. Results: For primary sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 92.9%; overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 9.1%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 93% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 56%. Sixty-five percent of the primary sensors survived to 180 days. For the SBA sensors, the percent CGM readings within 20%/20% of YSI values was 93.9%; overall MARD was 8.5%. The confirmed alert detection rate at 70 mg/dL was 94% and at 180 mg/dL was 99%. The median percentage of time for one calibration per day was 63%. Ninety percent of the SBA sensors survived to 180 days. No device- or insertion/removal procedure-related SAEs were reported. Conclusion: These data show the next-generation Eversense CGM system had sustained accuracy and safety up to 180 days, with an improved calibration scheme and survival, using the primary or SBA sensors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Eversense; Implantable sensor; PROMISE study
Authors: Jort Kropff; Pratik Choudhary; Sankalpa Neupane; Katharine Barnard; Steve C Bain; Christoph Kapitza; Thomas Forst; Manuela Link; Andrew Dehennis; J Hans DeVries Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Marcus Lind; William Polonsky; Irl B Hirsch; Tim Heise; Jan Bolinder; Sofia Dahlqvist; Erik Schwarz; Arndís Finna Ólafsdóttir; Anders Frid; Hans Wedel; Elsa Ahlén; Thomas Nyström; Jarl Hellman Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Torben Biester; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce A Buckingham; William T Cefalu; Kelly L Close; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Kim C Donaghue; Klemen Dovc; Francis J Doyle; Satish Garg; George Grunberger; Simon Heller; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Brian Levine; Alexander Mayorov; Chantal Mathieu; Helen R Murphy; Revital Nimri; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; David Rodbard; Banshi Saboo; Desmond Schatz; Keaton Stoner; Tatsuiko Urakami; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mark P Christiansen; Leslie J Klaff; Ronald Brazg; Anna R Chang; Carol J Levy; David Lam; Douglas S Denham; George Atiee; Bruce W Bode; Steven J Walters; Lynne Kelley; Timothy S Bailey Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Nicole Y Xu; Kevin T Nguyen; Ashley Y DuBord; John Pickup; Jennifer L Sherr; Hazhir Teymourian; Eda Cengiz; Barry H Ginsberg; Claudio Cobelli; David Ahn; Riccardo Bellazzi; B Wayne Bequette; Laura Gandrud Pickett; Linda Parks; Elias K Spanakis; Umesh Masharani; Halis K Akturk; John S Melish; Sarah Kim; Gu Eon Kang; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-02