A fluorescence lifetime-based fibre-optic glucose sensor using glucose/galactose-binding protein

Alternative, non-electrochemistry-based technologies for continuous glucose monitoring are needed for eventual use in diabetes mellitus. As part of a programme investigating fluorescent glucose sensors, we have developed fibre-optic biosensors using glucose/galactose binding protein (GBP) labelled with the environmentally sensitive fluorophore, Badan. GBP-Badan was attached via an oligohistidine-tag to the surface of Ni-nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)-functionalized agarose or polystyrene beads. Fluorescence lifetime increased in response to glucose, observed by fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy of the GBP-Badan-beads. Either GBP-Badan agarose or polystyrene beads were loaded into a porous chamber at the end of a multimode optical fibre. Fluorescence lifetime responses were recorded using pulsed laser excitation, high speed photodiode detection and time-correlated single-photon counting. The maximal response was at 100 mM glucose with an apparent K-d of 13 mM (agarose) and 20 mM (polystyrene), and good working-day stability was demonstrated. We conclude that fluorescence lifetime fibre-optic glucose sensors based on GBP-Badan are suitable for development as clinical glucose monitors

Sense and nonsense in sensors

Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a developing technology in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. The first randomised controlled trials on its efficacy have been performed. In several studies, CGM lowered HbA1c in adult patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes mellitus, when selecting compliant patients who tolerate the device. However, as a preventive tool for hypoglycaemia, CGM has not fulfilled the great expectations. Increasing reimbursement of CGM is expected in the near future, awaiting studies on cost-effectiveness

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG