Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2025
Simple Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Freely Moving Mice
Published on: February 24, 2023
Implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring system: a randomized cross over trial comparing
F Boscari1, M Vettoretti2, F Cavallin3
1Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Aim:
To compare accuracy, efficacy and acceptance of implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.
Methods:
In a randomized crossover trial we compared 12 weeks with Eversense implantable sensor (EVS) and 12 weeks with Dexcom G5 transcutaneous sensor (DG5) in terms of accuracy, evaluated as Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) vs capillary glucose (SMBG), time of CGM use, adverse events, efficacy (as HbA1c, time in range, time above and below range) and psychological outcomes evaluated with Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey (GMSS), Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS2), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS).
Results:
16 subjects (13 males, 48.8 ± 10.1 years, HbA1c 55.8 ± 7.9 mmol/mol, mean ± SD) completed the study. DG5 was used more than EVS [percentage of use 95.7 ± 3.6% vs 93.5 ± 4.3% (p = 0.02)]. MARD was better with EVS (12.2 ± 11.5% vs. 13.1 ± 14.7%, p< 0.001). No differences were found in HbA1c. While using EVS time spent in range increased and time spent in hyperglycemia decreased, but these data were not confirmed by analysis of retrofitted data based on SMBG values. EVS reduced perceived distress, without significant changes in other psychological outcomes.
Conclusions:
CGM features may affect glycemic control and device acceptance.
