Monitoring: An End to Pricked Fingers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Finger-stick monitors have long been the only way for people with diabetes to determine their glucose levels on a day-to-day basis. Anywhere from twice a week to several times a day, patients jab their fingers with small lancet needles to draw drops of blood that can then be slipped into a monitor to measure the concentration of the glucose in their blood. Aside from the pain and inconvenience, such occasional blood sampling is less than ideal for maintaining healthy glucose levels.

But the era of lancet pricks may be coming to an end. In the past few years, three companies—Medtronic Diabetes, DexCom and Abbott Diabetes Care—have introduced the first personal continuous glucose-monitoring devices, a new technology that relies on a sensor implanted underneath the skin to send information on glucose levels via a radio transmitter to a pager-size monitoring device. These gadgets are not yet a permanent solution for glucose monitoring: the FDA has only approved sensors that measure continuously for three to seven days, when the sensors have to be replaced.

Still, continuous glucose monitors are allowing patients to access a previously unimaginable amount of information about their bodies. The tiny rechargeable, waterproof sensor on Medtronic’s Real-Time continuous glucose monitor, for example, sends measurements to the monitor every minute. The device then displays an average of the last five minutes’ worth of data. In total, it generates some 288 readings every day—almost 100 times as many as patients using a traditional monitor. The device provides readings of daily glucose highs and lows, and it also integrates trends in the data, which can then be downloaded onto a computer. This minute-by-minute catalogue allows users to see exactly how certain foods and activities affect their bodies. Medtronic also offers a version of the device that interacts with its insulin pump, which displays information from the sensor, allowing users to adjust insulin levels more conveniently.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


While these devices offer a glimpse into an exciting future—eventually the monitors may be able to automatically adjust insulin pump doses, operating as a kind of mechanical pancreas—a few major obstacles remain in the short term. For one thing, continuous glucose monitors are not automatically covered by insurance unless a patient shows a specific need. Subcutaneous sensors also have their drawbacks. Because they are implanted in tissue underneath the skin and not in the bloodstream itself, they don’t always register the exact glucose levels in the body. Subcutaneous glucose levels tend to lag those in the bloodstream, making calibration a problem. To avoid this discrepancy, Abbott’s device, the Navigator, doesn’t allow itself to be calibrated if glucose levels are rising. Abbott’s monitor is the only one of the three companies’ devices that has not yet received FDA approval, although it is expected later this year.     —Justin Ewers

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe