Cited by 40Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementElectrochemical sensors and biosensors

Real-World Data from the First U.S. Commercial Users of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor

Open access
Sanchez, Patricia, Ghosh-Dastidar, Samanwoy, Tweden, Katherine S., Kaufman, Francine R.·2019·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background: The Eversense ® Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System, with the first 90-day implantable sensor, received FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval in June 2018. No real-world experience has been published. Methods: Deidentified sensor glucose (SG) data from August 1, 2018 to May 11, 2019 in the Eversense Data Management System (DMS) were analyzed for the first 205 patients who reached a 90-day wear period on the Eversense CGM system. The mean SG, standard deviation (SD), median interquartile range, coefficient of variation (CV), glucose measurement index (GMI), and percent and time in minutes across glucose ranges were computed for the 24-h time period, the nighttime (00:00–06:00), and by 30-day wear periods. Sensor accuracy, sensor reinsertion rate, transmitter wear time, and safety data were assessed. Results: Of the 205 patients, 129 identified as type 1, 18 as type 2, and 58 were unreported. Fifty were CGM naive, 112 had prior CGM experience, and 43 were unreported. The mean SG was 161.8 mg/dL, SD was 57.4 mg/dL, CV was 0.35, and GMI was 7.18%. Percent SG at <54 mg/dL was 1.2% (18 min), <70 mg/dL was 4.1% (59.7 min), time in range (≥70–180 mg/dL) was 62.3% (897.7 min), >180–250 mg/dL was 21.9% (315.8 min), and >250 mg/dL was 11.6% (166.7 min). Nighttime values were similar. The glucometric values were similar over 30-day time periods of the sensor wear. The mean absolute relative difference (SD) using 27,708 calibration paired points against home blood glucose meters was 11.2% (11.3%). The sensor reinsertion rate was 78.5%. The median transmitter wear time was 83.6%. There were no related serious adverse events. Conclusion: The Eversense real-world data showed promising glycemic results, sensor accuracy, and safety. These data suggest that the Eversense CGM system is a valuable tool for diabetes management.

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.2019.0234

Cites

23 of 23 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 [85]

    The discussion (page unavailable) attributes a low rate of skin reactions to the implanted system’s short-duration adhesive use, and the Safety results report patch or adhesive irritation in 2.5% of users. The paper does not report outcomes specifically for people sensitive to tape, so the claim’s application to that group is not directly supported. (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: 1

  1. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane W, Ahmann A, et al.: Effec- tiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in type 1 dia- betes. N Engl J Med 2010;363:311-320.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanchez, P., Ghosh-Dastidar, S., Tweden, K. S., & Kaufman, F. R.
Affiliations
  • Senseonics (United States) (US)
  • Senseonics, Incorporated, Germantown, Maryland.
Corresponding author
Tweden, Katherine S.
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2019-11-22
Volume
21
Issue
12
Pages
677-681
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
OpenAlex
W2965202752
Cited by
40
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, sensor accuracy, time in range, coefficient of variation, real-world data, FDA approval, adverse events
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, United States, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

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