4 ms·

Here's a second non-diabetic who tracks their glucose with the same non-invasive device and started analyzing it. Blog post: https://richardsprague.com/notes/c

Here's a second non-diabetic who tracks their glucose with the same non-invasive device and started analyzing it. Blog post: https://richardsprague.com/notes/cgm/cgm_analysis/ https://richardsprague.com/notes/cgm/cgm_analysis/ Slides from presentation last week: https://www.slideshare.net/richardsprague/quantified-self-seattle-january-2019-continuous-glucose-monitoring https://www.slideshare.net/richardsprague/quantified-self-se... He also tweets about it: https://twitter.com/sprague https://twitter.com/sprague

gwern 8y ago
It seems to still be invasive: https://www.freestylelibre.us/support/faq.html#faqTabstab-3 https://www.freestylelibre.us/support/faq.html#faqTabstab-3 > The sensor is applied to the back of the upper arm with a simple, disposable device called an applicator. When the sensor is applied, a small (5mm) filament is inserted just under the skin, and held in place with a small adhesive pad. 'Inserted just under the skin' means it's still invasive, but that sounds nicer than regular needle-sticks so perhaps 'less-invasive' would be a more accurate description.
- troydavis 8y ago
  Per the people I know who have tried it, including the author of this post, it's totally painless. One can debate whether or not a filament you can't feel is invasive, but for all practical purposes it's the same as no filament. For clarity: the measurement you pasted is the length of the filament. The width/thickness is ridiculously tiny. Basically, this product has the same UX as a nicotine patch.
  - Engineering-MD 8y ago
    From a design perspective definitely invasive. Design strategies and regulations change greatly for products which penetrate the skin. But you are correct in that it is a patient friendly device without the associated burden of lost invasive devices.
    - SpikeDad 8y ago
      From an FDA perspective invasive also. Otherwise you wouldn't need a prescription.
  - cpwright 8y ago
    I have a Guardian 3 sensor from Medtronic, which I've been using for about a year. The initial insertion isn't "painful", but can definitely be uncomfortable, and there might be a bit of blood that leaks into the sensor cavity. Once it is in, there is no discomfort. The adhesive tape which is needed to attach it to your skin is actually more uncomfortable than the sensor. Combined with a 670G pump it has been a huge benefit for me. My A1C of 9.0 is now down in the 6's. My pump broke while I was on vacation for a week, and my control was clearly worse with pens and finger sticks than the pump and sensor.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  If you travel a lot it’s invasive in that you can’t really wear it through full body scanners.
- ejain 8y ago
  > perhaps 'less-invasive' would be a more accurate description I prefer "minimally invasive"... You can't just remove the device and stick it back on, but it's good enough that a truly non-invasive device would be a marginal improvement for me.

gwern 8y ago

It seems to still be invasive: https://www.freestylelibre.us/support/faq.html#faqTabstab-3 https://www.freestylelibre.us/support/faq.html#faqTabstab-3 > The sensor is applied to the back of the upper arm with a simple, disposable device called an applicator. When the sensor is applied, a small (5mm) filament is inserted just under the skin, and held in place with a small adhesive pad. 'Inserted just under the skin' means it's still invasive, but that sounds nicer than regular needle-sticks so perhaps 'less-invasive' would be a more accurate description.

troydavis 8y ago
Per the people I know who have tried it, including the author of this post, it's totally painless. One can debate whether or not a filament you can't feel is invasive, but for all practical purposes it's the same as no filament. For clarity: the measurement you pasted is the length of the filament. The width/thickness is ridiculously tiny. Basically, this product has the same UX as a nicotine patch.
- Engineering-MD 8y ago
  From a design perspective definitely invasive. Design strategies and regulations change greatly for products which penetrate the skin. But you are correct in that it is a patient friendly device without the associated burden of lost invasive devices.
  - SpikeDad 8y ago
    From an FDA perspective invasive also. Otherwise you wouldn't need a prescription.
- cpwright 8y ago
  I have a Guardian 3 sensor from Medtronic, which I've been using for about a year. The initial insertion isn't "painful", but can definitely be uncomfortable, and there might be a bit of blood that leaks into the sensor cavity. Once it is in, there is no discomfort. The adhesive tape which is needed to attach it to your skin is actually more uncomfortable than the sensor. Combined with a 670G pump it has been a huge benefit for me. My A1C of 9.0 is now down in the 6's. My pump broke while I was on vacation for a week, and my control was clearly worse with pens and finger sticks than the pump and sensor.
dawnerd 8y ago
If you travel a lot it’s invasive in that you can’t really wear it through full body scanners.
ejain 8y ago
> perhaps 'less-invasive' would be a more accurate description I prefer "minimally invasive"... You can't just remove the device and stick it back on, but it's good enough that a truly non-invasive device would be a marginal improvement for me.