Cited by 44Diabetes Management and ResearchElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsDiabetes Treatment and Management

Real-World Safety of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor Over Multiple Cycles of Use: A Post-Market Registry Study

Open access
Deiss, Dorothee, Irace, Concetta, Carlson, Grace, Tweden, Katherine S., Kaufman, Francine R.·2020·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Previously, the safety and accuracy of the Eversense continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system were characterized in three pivotal trials among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a single 90- or 180-day sensor insertion–removal cycle. The Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) registry is a prospective study evaluating the long-term safety and performance of the Eversense CGM system over multiple sensor insertion–removal cycles among adults with T1D and T2D. All patients who had a sensor subcutaneously implanted across 534 participating centers in Europe and South Africa from June 2016 to August 2018 were enrolled. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded at each visit and patients were instructed to inform their clinic if they experienced any AEs between visits. AEs were adjudicated for relatedness to the device, procedure, or drug (dexamethasone acetate). The primary safety endpoint was the rate of related serious adverse events (SAEs) through four sensor insertion–removal cycles. The registry enrolled 3023 patients. As of last follow-up, 5417 sensors had been inserted with a total of 1260 patient-years (PYs) of follow-up: 969 patients had used the system for at least 6 months and 173 patients had used the system for at least 1 year. No related SAEs were reported. The most frequently reported related AEs were sensor location site infection (0.96%; 2.46 events per 100 PYs), inability to remove the sensor upon first attempt (0.76%; 1.90 events per 100 PYs), and adhesive patch location site irritation (0.66%; 1.59 events per 100 PYs). One nonserious allergic reaction to lidocaine was reported, which resolved with administration of an antihistamine. The full intended sensor life was achieved by 91% of 90-day sensors and 75% of 180-day sensors. The PMCF registry provides real-world evidence that the Eversense CGM system is safe over multiple cycles of use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2019.0159

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of an implanted sensor can help avoid skin reactions in those who are sensitive to tape.

    “In some instances, the use of an implanted sensor can help avoid skin reactions in those who are sensitive to tape (84,85).”

    From The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (2021) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says skin reactions with the implanted Eversense system were less clinically significant than allergic contact dermatitis reported with some transcutaneous systems. But the Results report adhesive-patch irritation in 20 patients, and the paper does not establish that the system helps people sensitive to tape avoid skin reactions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 317: 379– 387 28118454
  2. [4]Hommel E, Olsen B, Battelino T, et al.: Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and use of medical care resources: analyses from the SWITCH study. Acta Diabetol 2014; 51: 845– 851 25037251 PMC4176956
  3. [5]Engler R, Routh TL, Lucisano JY: Adoption barriers for continuous glucose monitoring and their potential reduction with a fully implanted system: results from patient preference surveys. Clin Diabetes 2018; 36: 50– 58 29382979 PMC5774999
  4. [6]Wong JC, Foster NC, Maahs DM, et al.: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 2702– 2709 25011947 PMC4392936
  5. [7]Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al.: State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21: 66– 72 30657336 PMC7061293
  6. [8]Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Brazg R, et al.: A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of a novel implanted continuous glucose sensor: PRECISE II. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 197– 206 29381090 PMC5867508
  7. [9]Kropff J, Choudhary P, Neupane S, et al.: Accuracy and longevity of an implantable continuous glucose sensor in the PRECISE study: a 180-day, prospective, multicenter, pivotal trial. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 63– 68 27815290
  8. [10]Christiansen M, Klaff LJ, Bailey TS, et al.: A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy and safety of an implanted continuous glucose sensor: the PRECISION study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21: 231– 237 30925083 PMC6532543
  9. [12]Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Implementation of treatment protocols in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 361– 376 7555480
  10. [13]Herman A, Aerts O, Baeck M, et al.: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle® Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 77: 367– 373 28804907

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deiss, D., Irace, C., Carlson, G., Tweden, K. S., & Kaufman, F. R.
Affiliations
  • Medicover (DE)
  • Magna Graecia University (IT)
  • Carlson Consulting, San Francisco, California.
  • Senseonics (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Tweden, Katherine S.
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2020-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
48-52
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
OpenAlex
W2967819471
Cited by
44
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
sensor safety, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, serious adverse events, real-world evidence
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Blood Glucose, Humans, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Prospective Studies, Registries, Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review