Evaluation of Accuracy and Safety of the Next-Generation Up to 180-Day Long-Term Implantable Eversense Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: The PROMISE Study

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.

[1]  7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. , 2020, Diabetes care.

[2]  A. Gnasso,et al.  Clinical use of a 180‐day implantable glucose sensor improves glycated haemoglobin and time in range in patients with type 1 diabetes† , 2020, Diabetes, obesity & metabolism.

[3]  F. Kaufman,et al.  Real-World Safety of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor Over Multiple Cycles of Use: A Post-Market Registry Study , 2020, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[4]  Samanwoy Ghosh-Dastidar,et al.  Real-World Data from the First US Commercial Users of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor. , 2019, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[5]  F. Doyle,et al.  Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range , 2019, Diabetes Care.

[6]  T. Bailey,et al.  A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of the Accuracy and Safety of an Implanted Continuous Glucose Sensor: The PRECISION Study , 2019, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

[7]  R. Aronson,et al.  First assessment of the performance of an implantable continuous glucose monitoring system through 180 days in a primarily adolescent population with type 1 diabetes , 2019, Diabetes, obesity & metabolism.

[8]  David M Maahs,et al.  State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. , 2019, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[9]  P. Kushner,et al.  Healthcare Resource Waste Associated with Patient Nonadherence and Early Discontinuation of Traditional Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Real-World Settings: A Multicountry Analysis , 2018, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[10]  Mark A. Mortellaro,et al.  Interference Assessment of Various Endogenous and Exogenous Substances on the Performance of the Eversense Long-Term Implantable Continuous Glucose Monitoring System , 2018, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[11]  Ronald Brazg,et al.  A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of the Accuracy of a Novel Implanted Continuous Glucose Sensor: PRECISE II , 2018, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[12]  Timothy L. Routh,et al.  Adoption Barriers for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Their Potential Reduction With a Fully Implanted System: Results From Patient Preference Surveys , 2018, Clinical Diabetes.

[13]  Pratik Choudhary,et al.  Clinical Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes , 2017, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[14]  Howard Wolpert,et al.  Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, JAMA.

[15]  Sofia Dahlqvist,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 , 2017, JAMA.

[16]  J. Hans DeVries,et al.  Accuracy and Longevity of an Implantable Continuous Glucose Sensor in the PRECISE Study: A 180-Day, Prospective, Multicenter, Pivotal Trial , 2016, Diabetes Care.

[17]  Andrew DeHennis,et al.  Performance characterization of an abiotic and fluorescent-based continuous glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 diabetes. , 2014, Biosensors & bioelectronics.

[18]  Hui Jiang,et al.  Increased in vivo stability and functional lifetime of an implantable glucose sensor through platinum catalysis. , 2013, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[19]  No Authors Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021 , 2022, KIDNEYS.