This Associated Press story describes a newly FDA-approved device — a continuous glucose monitor that does not require any blood testing. The story does a great job describing the convenience and the potential for better blood sugar monitoring, and therefore, better regulation of insulin levels in people with diabetes. However, the story doesn’t evaluate the evidence for these claims. How well does the device work in real patients compared to existing systems? It’s a pretty key question that goes unanswered.
More than 29 million Americans have diabetes, according the CDC. The disease requires that patients check their glucose levels throughout the day and self-administer insulin to keep those levels within a normal range. Improvements in medical technology over the past few decades have meant blood sugar monitoring and insulin delivery that is both more accurate and more convenient, helping people with diabetes maintain steadier glucose levels and have fewer crisis events. Eliminating the need for finger pricks to test one’s blood has the potential to optimize this process even more.
The story does not put a number to the cost of the two-part device, saying the device-maker is not yet disclosing that info.
The benefits of the new continuous blood sugar monitor are not quantified in any way. At the very least, we’d like to know how accurate the sensor is compared to the current method of blood testing.
The story does not consider any potential harms of the system. Is there a failure risk (which might mean patients have to go back to finger pricks to do blood testing). And, since we don’t how good the accuracy is (see benefits), is there a risk that errant blood sugar readings might lead to improper insulin dosing, and the risks that lie therein?
We would also need to know under what conditions the device may not function properly. For example, if the person is sweating profusely, or very chilled, etc. The consequences of poor accuracy under suboptimal conditions are not explored.
The story provides no evidence for benefits or harms, so there’s no qualitative assessment. A discussion of what evidence the FDA used to base their decision upon would be very useful, since medical devices often receive lower scrutiny from the FDA.
The story does not engage in disease-mongering. Diabetes is common and problematic. Notably, however, most people with Type 2 diabetes who are not on insulin do not need to monitor their blood glucose.
The one quoted source in the story is a paid consultant for a number of diabetes device companies. We think an outside perspective, a diabetes doctor or research who does not stand to profit from blood sugar monitoring device sales, is crucial here.
The story describes well the current methods that people with diabetes use to monitor their blood sugar: Standard glucose meters and continuous glucose monitoring devices, both which require two or more finger pricks each day. The story also mentions another product, from a different device maker and new this year, that directly links to a personal insulin pump.
The story tells us that “should be available in pharmacies within months.”
The story makes clear what is new and different about this device — it does not require daily finger pricks to calibrate the readings.
However, it is clear there is a competing product, which begs the question: Why is this so interesting if something similar is already out? That should have been explored more.
The story does not appear to rely on new release from either the device maker Abbott or the FDA.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like