Lancing Device Comparison Study

NCT ID: NCT01740778

Last Updated: 2012-12-04

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

200 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2009-08-31

Study Completion Date

2009-09-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

To evaluate pain responses using the Aurora lancing device and Velvet 33g lancet compared to other common, commercially available lancing systems. Subjects will test the devices at a depth setting sufficient to provide enough blood volume to trigger the OneTouch® Ultra®Mini blood glucose meter using OneTouch® Ultra® blood glucose test strips from either the fingertip or alternate site testing.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

A low-pain lancing is being developed code name Aurora) for use with a 33g proprietary lancet (code name Velvet). This study evaluates the pain associated with finger lancing using this device and compares that pain to other commercially available lancing devices and associated lancets.

All lancets used in the study are currently commercially available except the Facet 33g lancet, which is a prototype version of commercially available lancets.

The Roche Multiclix, Roche Softclix, One Touch Comfort and Bayer Microlet 2 lancing devices are all commercially available.

The Aurora Lancing Device is effective in obtaining a sufficient blood sample for performing an accurate blood glucose measurement; and the benefits of using the Aurora Lancing Device outweighs any residual risks associated with the product. Literature concerning blood glucose testing was researched by using popular medical databases such as pubmed.gov, diabeteshealth.com, clinicaltrial.gov and search terms lancing device, clinical study, blood volume and pain. Using other popular search engines such as Google was beneficial in helping to support claims concerning safety and efficacy. A commercial database company, NERAC was used as a part of the literature research effort. Our review, together with preliminary in-house bench testing, shows that the Aurora Lancing Device should be able to:

* Obtain enough blood volume for a meter reading that measures blood glucose levels;
* Is as safe as comparative lancing devices currently on the market;
* Produces no more pain than comparative lancing devices currently on the market using a 28 gauge needle; and
* Is representative of "current state of the art" The Aurora Lancing Device uses a 33 gauge, uniquely designed lancet developed under project Velvet. The blood lancet is designed so that it can only be used in the Aurora lancing device. The lancing device features multiple depth settings and includes alternate site test capability. The lancet guidance system is designed to maximize lancet control thereby increasing comfort and reducing pain perception. The Aurora lancing device is comparable to the Roche Softclix and other lancing devices already in commercial distribution. Like Aurora the Roche Softclix lancing device offers diabetics a unique lancet design and precise lancet motion. Roche Softclix uses a 28 gauge lancet and has eleven depth settings as well as alternative site test capability.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Diabetes Medical Device Lancing

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

CASE_CONTROL

Study Time Perspective

CROSS_SECTIONAL

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Study Group 1

Aurora vs. Microlet 2

No interventions assigned to this group

Study Group 2

Aurora vs. SoftClix

No interventions assigned to this group

Study Group 3

Aurora vs. One Touch Comfort

No interventions assigned to this group

Study Group 4

Aurora vs. Multiclix

No interventions assigned to this group

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Must have been diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes for at least 1 year Must be doing SMBG, at least twice daily for at least 6 months Must be 18 years of age and older Must have healthy fingers and hands Must be able to read instructions in English. Must be able to perform all tasks in the protocol.

Exclusion Criteria

Subjects with neuropathy or any other nerve damage in the hand or fingers (this will be discovered through the monofilament test)

Subjects who are taking prescription anti-coagulants or more than one full aspirin per day during the past week or have clotting problems that may prolong bleeding (persons taking Plavix or a daily low dose aspirin will not be excluded but this will be recorded).

Subjects taking prescription medications for neuropathy.

Subjects with hemophilia or any other bleeding disorder.

subjects with infection with a blood borne pathogen (e.g., HIV, hepatitis).

Subjects having a condition such as a cognitive disorder, which in the opinion of the Investigator would put the person at risk or seriously compromise the integrity of the study (PI will sign CRF if subject is excluded).

Subjects with missing digits.

Subjects who are pregnant or nursing.

Subjects on chemotherapy.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Facet Technologies

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Mary Kate Pynes

CRA

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Ashley Shemain, MBA

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

SHEMAIN CONSULTING GROUP, LLC

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

FT-2009-Aurora

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id