New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe