The Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System, a smart pen cap system cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021, incorporates continuous glucose monitoring data, real-time glycemic alerts, and clinician-directed dose recommendations. This study analyzed real-world clinical outcomes data for an initial cohort (n = 58, from 13 clinics) managing multiple daily injection insulin therapy using the pen cap system for 6 months. We examined glycemic control, including hypoglycemia events and interaction with and use of the pen cap system. In a cohort mainly consisting of adults with type 2 diabetes and an average age of 62 years, the results demonstrate close adherence to established glycemic targets, including a relatively short amount of time spent in the hypoglycemic range.

The worldwide prevalence of insulin-requiring diabetes is estimated at ∼200 million individuals and is increasing (1). In the United States alone, an estimated 10 million people require insulin (13). Living with diabetes is associated with physical, cognitive, and emotional burdens that may be more pronounced in traditional multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin therapy because of the complex, demanding, and often confusing self-care directives associated with this regimen (48).

At clinic visits, physicians often do not have enough glucose and dosing information available to make informed adjustments to the prescribed insulin dosing regimen. Although there have been significant advances in tools and technologies available to people with diabetes, these advances historically have focused on solutions for individuals using insulin pumps (7,9). Simple, intuitive, integrated smart pen systems are needed to help those managing diabetes with an MDI insulin regimen overcome the barriers of missed doses, inadequate insulin intensification, and dosing errors (10).

The Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System (Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Milpitas, CA) is a unique, interconnected diabetes management system designed to enable a holistic approach to address common barriers to MDI therapy. Bigfoot Unity is a smart pen cap system compatible with most commercially available, disposable pens for long- and rapid-acting insulin analogs. The system integrates with the commercially available FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA) to incorporate CGM data and enable real-time glycemic alerts. The Bigfoot Unity mobile app is used to enter prescribed insulin doses from a health care professional (HCP), generate and display alerts and messaging about the user’s glucose range, and store historical information, including glucose data and insulin dose timing. The digital pen cap for rapid-acting insulin scans the CGM sensor and displays recommended meal and correction insulin doses based on HCP instructions and the current glucose value. The cap for long-acting insulin displays the recommended dose and time of last dose, and the app can alert users when a long-acting dose may have been missed. A connected blood glucose meter (Agamatrix, Salem, NH) provides flexibility for fingerstick blood glucose measurement when needed. Cloud-based services enable data to be passively shared from the mobile app to the Cloud for data analysis and sharing with an HCP through Bigfoot’s Clinic Hub. Three-month real-world outcome data for individuals using the system were presented previously (11); here, we report 6-month outcome data.

Study Design

We used de-identified data from the Bigfoot commercial database and a prespecified research analysis plan to perform a retrospective analysis. The prespecified research plan was reviewed by a central institutional review board (IRB) and deemed exempt from IRB oversight. Although Bigfoot Unity is indicated for individuals ≥12 years of age, no one <18 years of age was using it. All those who completed training and were active on the system for 6 months were included in this retrospective analysis except for those enrolled into the ongoing, prospective, Bigfoot Unity Real World Study (BURST; NCT05088265), who were excluded. A total of 75 individuals from 13 clinics met these criteria and were defined as the safety population.

Considering all of the native 15-minute-interval CGM data available from the sensor within the defined analysis periods, at least 50% of the CGM data were required within the first 2 weeks and in the sixth month of system use to be included in the analysis of glycemic and system use parameters. Using these criteria, a clinical outcomes analysis cohort (n = 58 from 13 clinics) with insulin-requiring diabetes managed with an MDI insulin regimen with use of the pen cap system for at least 180 days was identified for this analysis. Baseline A1C values from before initiation of the system (n = 51 from 12 clinics) were obtained from clinic medical records. The allowable window for baseline A1C data inclusion was −180 to +14 days from the start of pen cap use. Available A1C values from after system initiation were also obtained from clinic medical records. Thirty of the 58 individuals in the clinical outcomes analysis cohort had at least one post-initiation A1C value.

Analysis Periods

The final cutoff date for this retrospective analysis was 16 June 2022. The initial system glucose value was used to indicate the system start (day 0). The first 14 days of system use were considered the initial period for CGM metrics analysis. The 3- and 6-month end points were defined as 61–90 and 150–180 days, respectively, after system initiation.

Glycemic and System-Use Parameters

Prespecified outcomes to analyze were glucose management indicator (GMI) calculated as described by Bergenstal et al. (12), percent time in range (TIR; 70–180 mg/dL), percent times below range (<70, 54–69, and <54 mg/dL), percent times above range (>180, 181–250, and >250 mg/dL), sensor data availability (from sensor scans), mean sensor glucose, coefficient of variation, mean sensor scans, dose events, and other system interactions. For system interactions, a patient engagement proxy was prespecified as the total interactions with the system per day, combining the following data parameters captured in the commercial Cloud database: visits to the app’s History or Home screen, visits to the Cap Meal screen or Meal+Correction screen, sensor scans, dose events, settings changes, and acknowledgment of low glucose, very low glucose, or long-acting dose alerts. Similarly, as a proxy for physician engagement, the average number of HCP visits per patient per week to view ambulatory glucose profile reports (accessed through Bigfoot’s Clinic Hub) are reported for each time period. Prespecified subgroup analyses included those with baseline A1C ≥8% versus <8% and those with and without previous CGM experience.

As a proxy of pre- and postprandial glucose, we analyzed insulin dose events without any intervening doses within ± 2 hours. In this analysis, only doses with a valid glucose reading (e.g., from a sensor scan) occurring 10 minutes before the recorded dose were included. The valid glucose reading event allows a determination of whether a clinician-directed correction was recommended by the system at the time of the dose based on the glucose value at the time of scanning. This feature allows for aggregate analysis according to doses taken when glucose was above the target range (when a clinician-directed correction dose would be recommended by the system) versus those doses taken when glucose was in range (when a correction dose would not be recommended).

Safety Assessments

For assessing hypoglycemia, the mean numbers of unique low and very low glucose events occurring per week within each analysis period were summarized. A low glucose event was defined as glucose <70 mg/dL with subsequent recovery to >80 mg/dL. A very low glucose event was defined as glucose <55 mg/dL with subsequent recovery to >65 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia events were also summarized for the nocturnal period, defined as midnight (2400 hours) to 6:00 a.m. (0600 hours) the next day.

Post-market surveillance data were reviewed for adverse events occurring in the 75-person safety population of commercial users.

Statistical Analysis

Because this was an observational, retrospective analysis, the sample size was not based on statistical power. Analyses were prespecified to combine type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but times in ranges and GMI were tested for poolability using bootstrapping because of the small sample size of individuals with type 1 diabetes. For each metric, 1,000 random samples of size n = 9 (the size of the sample with type 1 diabetes) were drawn. The 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrapped means were used to determine whether the true mean fell within this range.

There were no attempts to account for missing data in the analyses. Depending on the distribution, repeated-measures ANOVA or Freidman tests were conducted on glycemic and system-use parameters and hypoglycemia events to assess whether there were any significant differences across time periods (2 weeks and third and sixth months). Similar methods were used to identify significant differences between baseline A1C and GMI (estimated A1C) across time periods. If the ANOVA or Freidman tests were found to be significant, subsequent paired t tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to test for differences between periods. All P values were two-sided and were not adjusted for multiple tests. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using Python software.

Patient Characteristics

Within the clinical outcomes analysis cohort (n = 58), the mean age was 62.0 years (range 23–88 years) and 49 of the 58 individuals (84.5%) had type 2 diabetes. The mean duration of diabetes was 17.2 years. Most individuals (76.4%) had used CGM previously, while nearly all were new to using smart pens (96.4%) and diabetes apps (92.7%) (Table 1). The mean A1C before system use was 8.4 ± 1.8% in 51 individuals; the mean timing of the baseline A1C was 48.4 ± 33.9 days before system start.

TABLE 1

Patient Characteristics (n = 58)

ParameterValue
Age, years 62.0 ± 14.2 
Type 2 diabetes 49 (84.5) 
Correction insulin use at start 53 (91.4) 
Fixed-meal dose at start 35 (60.3) 
Meal dose setup
 Breakfast, lunch, dinner
 Small, medium, large
 Three carbohydrate amounts 

40 (69.0)
13 (22.4)
4 (6.9) 
Estimated total daily dose, units 81.5 ± 46.4 
Diabetes duration, years 17.2 ± 10.1 
Prior CGM use* 42 (76.4) 
New to smart pens* 53 (96.4) 
New to diabetes apps* 51 (92.7) 
Prior pump use* 3 (5.6) 
ParameterValue
Age, years 62.0 ± 14.2 
Type 2 diabetes 49 (84.5) 
Correction insulin use at start 53 (91.4) 
Fixed-meal dose at start 35 (60.3) 
Meal dose setup
 Breakfast, lunch, dinner
 Small, medium, large
 Three carbohydrate amounts 

40 (69.0)
13 (22.4)
4 (6.9) 
Estimated total daily dose, units 81.5 ± 46.4 
Diabetes duration, years 17.2 ± 10.1 
Prior CGM use* 42 (76.4) 
New to smart pens* 53 (96.4) 
New to diabetes apps* 51 (92.7) 
Prior pump use* 3 (5.6) 

Data are mean ± SD or n (%).

*

Some parameters had missing data: estimated total daily dose (n = 57); diabetes duration (n = 50); prior CGM, smart pen, and diabetes app use (n = 55); and prior pump use (n = 54).

Post-Initiation A1C

Fifty-eight post-initiation A1C values were available for 30 individuals. The mean timing of these A1C tests was 184.3 ± 101.6 days after system start. These A1C values were compared with the associated GMI values calculated for the 30-day period just before the A1C collection date. For this subset of the cohort, the mean error in the difference was 0.13 ± 0.58%, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.42) and suggested that GMI is a reasonable proxy for A1C metrics for this population.

Glycemic Outcomes

Mean GMI values in the first 2 weeks (days 1–14), the third month (days 61–90), and the sixth month (days 151–180) of use were 7.1 ± 0.8% (n = 58), 7.4 ± 0.9% (n = 57), and 7.3 ± 0.8% (n = 58), respectively (Table 2). Given the limited post-initiation A1C values, we used GMI as a proxy for A1C to perform pairwise comparisons in 50 individuals with data available from baseline through 6 months of use. The estimated improvement in glycemic control using GMI at 2 weeks and in the third and sixth months was 1.2 ± 1.5, 1.1 ± 1.7, and 1.1 ± 1.6%, respectively, and was statistically significant compared with baseline A1C (P < 0.05) (Figure 1A). In a subset analysis of those with baseline A1C ≥8% (n = 29), the mean baseline A1C was 9.4 ± 1.7%, and GMI in the sixth month was 7.5 ± 0.8%; this change was statistically significant (Figure 1B). In the subgroup with starting A1C <8% (n = 22), the mean A1C was 7.0 ± 0.7%, and GMI in the sixth month was 6.9 ± 0.5%; this change was not statistically significant (Figure 1B).

TABLE 2

CGM Parameters (n = 58)

Parameter2 WeeksThird Month*Sixth Month
CGM data availability, % 83.0 ± 9.9 76.4 ± 17.1 79.0 ± 11.7 
Coefficient of variation, % 30.1 ± 7.2 30.9 ± 6.3 30.0 ± 6.6 
Glucose, mg/dL 160.4 ± 32.7 170.7 ± 38.0 166.2 ± 31.8 
GMI, % 7.1 ± 0.8 7.4 ± 0.9 7.3 ± 0.8 
Percent times in ranges, mg/dL
 70–180
 >180
 181–250
 >250
 <70
 54–69
 <54 

67.3 ± 20.2
30.8 ± 20.6
22.7 ± 11.9
8.1 ± 12.6
1.9 ± 3.1
1.7 ± 2.6
0.2 ± 0.6 

61.8 ± 20.8
36.6 ± 21.7
24.8 ± 11.3
11.8 ± 15.5
1.6 ± 2.7
1.5 ± 2.4
0.2 ± 0.3 

64.2 ± 20.3
34.3 ± 20.6
24.7 ± 11.4
9.6 ± 12.4
1.4 ± 2.4
1.3 ± 2.1
0.2 ± 0.4 
Parameter2 WeeksThird Month*Sixth Month
CGM data availability, % 83.0 ± 9.9 76.4 ± 17.1 79.0 ± 11.7 
Coefficient of variation, % 30.1 ± 7.2 30.9 ± 6.3 30.0 ± 6.6 
Glucose, mg/dL 160.4 ± 32.7 170.7 ± 38.0 166.2 ± 31.8 
GMI, % 7.1 ± 0.8 7.4 ± 0.9 7.3 ± 0.8 
Percent times in ranges, mg/dL
 70–180
 >180
 181–250
 >250
 <70
 54–69
 <54 

67.3 ± 20.2
30.8 ± 20.6
22.7 ± 11.9
8.1 ± 12.6
1.9 ± 3.1
1.7 ± 2.6
0.2 ± 0.6 

61.8 ± 20.8
36.6 ± 21.7
24.8 ± 11.3
11.8 ± 15.5
1.6 ± 2.7
1.5 ± 2.4
0.2 ± 0.3 

64.2 ± 20.3
34.3 ± 20.6
24.7 ± 11.4
9.6 ± 12.4
1.4 ± 2.4
1.3 ± 2.1
0.2 ± 0.4 

Data are mean ± SD.

*

One person did not have >50% of CGM data for analysis in the third month; data reflects n = 57.

Friedman test and subsequent pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference of the first 2 weeks compared with the third and sixth months (P <0.05); no other variables were found to be statistically significant using statistics appropriate to the distribution.

FIGURE 1

GMI compared with baseline A1C. A: Pairwise comparisons of baseline A1C and GMI in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use for the cohort with data available for each period (n = 50). B: Comparison of baseline A1C and GMI in the sixth month of use for baseline A1C subgroups (≥8% vs. <8%). For A and B, data represent mean and 95% CI; *GMI is significantly different (P <0.05) from baseline A1C using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. C: Change plot for baseline A1C to GMI in the sixth month. Lines reflect subgroups for various starting A1C levels based on 1-point increments. Data reflect those in the cohort with both parameters (n = 51). Line thickness reflects number of individuals in each A1C level.

FIGURE 1

GMI compared with baseline A1C. A: Pairwise comparisons of baseline A1C and GMI in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use for the cohort with data available for each period (n = 50). B: Comparison of baseline A1C and GMI in the sixth month of use for baseline A1C subgroups (≥8% vs. <8%). For A and B, data represent mean and 95% CI; *GMI is significantly different (P <0.05) from baseline A1C using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. C: Change plot for baseline A1C to GMI in the sixth month. Lines reflect subgroups for various starting A1C levels based on 1-point increments. Data reflect those in the cohort with both parameters (n = 51). Line thickness reflects number of individuals in each A1C level.

Close modal

To better understand subgroups with the greatest changes in glycemic control, a change plot for GMI in the sixth month, based on 1-point increments of baseline A1C values, was created (Figure 1C). Those with higher baseline A1C, on average, had the largest decrease in GMI, while those with lower baseline A1C had smaller changes. The lowest starting baseline A1C subgroups (baseline A1C in the 5 or 6% range), on average, had minimal change or slight increases in GMI.

Within a subgroup of users who had used CGM previously (n = 36), mean baseline A1C was 8.2 ± 1.6%, and GMI in the sixth month was 7.3 ± 0.7%, while improvement was greater in the small group of users who were considered CGM naive (n = 12). These individuals had a mean baseline A1C of 9.0 ± 2.3% and a GMI in the sixth month of 7.1 ± 0.9%.

Sensor use, mean glucose, coefficient of variation, and times in, above, and below range were evaluated (Table 2). For example, TIR (70–180 mg/dL) in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use was 67.3 ± 20.2, 61.8 ± 20.8, and 64.2 ± 20.3%, respectively. For TIR and several other related variables such as average glucose, GMI, and time above range (TAR), the first 2-week period was statistically significantly different from the third- and sixth-month periods (Table 2). Time below range (TBR; <70 mg/dL) was 1.9 ± 3.1, 1.6 ± 2.7, and 1.4 ± 2.4 in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use, respectively, and these values were not statistically significantly different across analysis periods (Table 2).

Poolability testing demonstrated that TIR, times above range, and GMI were poolable between the type 1 and type 2 diabetes subgroups. However, TBR was not considered poolable between these subgroups. Therefore, Figure 2 shows a stacked bar chart for times in ranges by type of diabetes in the sixth month of use; total TBR was 4.0 ± 4.7 and 1.0 ± 1.3% for the type 1 and type 2 diabetes subgroups, respectively.

FIGURE 2

Stacked bar chart for times in ranges for type 1 and type 2 diabetes subgroups. TIR, TAR, and TBR are shown by diabetes type for the sixth month of system use. Data represent the mean percentage within each range.

FIGURE 2

Stacked bar chart for times in ranges for type 1 and type 2 diabetes subgroups. TIR, TAR, and TBR are shown by diabetes type for the sixth month of system use. Data represent the mean percentage within each range.

Close modal

The average number of rapid-acting doses per day was 3.1 ± 1.3, 2.7 ± 1.0, and 2.6 ± 1.1 in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use, respectively, and was statistically significantly different in the first 2 weeks of use (Table 3). The average number of long-acting doses per week was 7.2 ± 3.0, 6.7 ± 2.5, and 6.7 ± 2.2 in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use, respectively, and was not statistically significantly different across time periods. When a long-acting dose alert was issued (average of 1.1 alerts/person/week), >70% of the time, the alert was followed by a long-acting dose within 2 hours (Table 3).

TABLE 3

System-Use Parameters (n = 58)

Parameter2 WeeksThird MonthSixth Month
CGM scans/day* 9.0 ± 5.1 6.4 ± 3.9 6.3 ± 4.2 
Rapid-acting insulin doses/person/day 3.1 ± 1.3 2.7 ± 1.0 2.6 ± 1.1 
Long-acting insulin doses/person/week 7.2 ± 3.0 6.7 ± 2.5 6.7 ± 2.2 
Long-acting insulin dose alerts/person/week 1.1 ± 0.8 1.0 ± 0.8 1.1 ± 1.0 
Long-acting insulin alerts followed by dose within 2 hours, %§ 73.8 ± 33.9 74.0 ± 28.8 71.6 ± 32.4 
Individuals with insulin dose adjustments, n (%) 10 (17.2) 14 (24.1) 10 (17.2) 
HCP engagement interactions/patient/week 2.1 ± 2.3 2.4 ± 1.8 2.6 ± 2.1 
Patient engagement interactions/person/day 22.1 ± 9.8 14.5 ± 8.3 14.0 ± 7.2 
Parameter2 WeeksThird MonthSixth Month
CGM scans/day* 9.0 ± 5.1 6.4 ± 3.9 6.3 ± 4.2 
Rapid-acting insulin doses/person/day 3.1 ± 1.3 2.7 ± 1.0 2.6 ± 1.1 
Long-acting insulin doses/person/week 7.2 ± 3.0 6.7 ± 2.5 6.7 ± 2.2 
Long-acting insulin dose alerts/person/week 1.1 ± 0.8 1.0 ± 0.8 1.1 ± 1.0 
Long-acting insulin alerts followed by dose within 2 hours, %§ 73.8 ± 33.9 74.0 ± 28.8 71.6 ± 32.4 
Individuals with insulin dose adjustments, n (%) 10 (17.2) 14 (24.1) 10 (17.2) 
HCP engagement interactions/patient/week 2.1 ± 2.3 2.4 ± 1.8 2.6 ± 2.1 
Patient engagement interactions/person/day 22.1 ± 9.8 14.5 ± 8.3 14.0 ± 7.2 

Data are mean ± SD or n (%).

*

n = 57 for third month.

ANOVA and subsequent pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference for the first 2 weeks compared with the third and sixth months (P <0.05).

Friedman test and subsequent pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference for the first 2 weeks compared with the third and sixth months (P <0.05); no other variables were found to be statistically significant using statistics appropriate to the distribution.

§

n = 46 for 2 weeks and n = 48 for the third and sixth months, reflecting those who received an alert.

As a proxy for pre- and postprandial glucose, we analyzed pre- and post-dose average glucose when a correction dose was recommended versus when no correction dose was recommended. In the sixth month of use, mean 2-hour postprandial glucose was 173.9 ± 36.3 and 159.8 ± 34.3 mg/dL, respectively (Figure 3B).

FIGURE 3

Preprandial and postprandial glucose. Preprandial and postprandial average glucose are shown for the third month of use when the system displayed an HCP-recommended correction dose versus when no correction was suggested (A). Similar preprandial and postprandial average glucose data are shown for the sixth month (B). In both A and B, data represent mean and 95% CI. *Difference in postprandial glucose from the preprandial glucose is statistically significant (P <0.05) using the paired t test.

FIGURE 3

Preprandial and postprandial glucose. Preprandial and postprandial average glucose are shown for the third month of use when the system displayed an HCP-recommended correction dose versus when no correction was suggested (A). Similar preprandial and postprandial average glucose data are shown for the sixth month (B). In both A and B, data represent mean and 95% CI. *Difference in postprandial glucose from the preprandial glucose is statistically significant (P <0.05) using the paired t test.

Close modal

Within the full cohort of 58, total system use was 38.3 person-years, 38,471 insulin doses were tracked, and a total of 9.3 × 106 CGM sensor readings were captured.

Safety Data

To assess hypoglycemia beyond TBR, we analyzed unique hypoglycemic events throughout the day and nocturnally. For example, at night, the average number of low glucose events (<70 mg/dL) was 1.3 ± 1.6, 0.8 ± 1.4, and 0.8 ± 1.0 in the first 2 weeks, third month, and sixth month of use, respectively, and was statistically significantly different in the first 2 weeks of use (Table 4).

TABLE 4

Hypoglycemia (n = 58)

Parameter2 WeeksThird MonthSixth Month
Low glucose events/person/week 4.9 ± 4.9* 2.9 ± 4.4 2.8 ± 3.0 
Nocturnal low glucose events/person/week 1.3 ± 1.6* 0.8 ± 1.4 0.8 ± 1.0 
Very low glucose events/person/week 1.2 ± 2.3 0.8 ± 1.5 0.7 ± 1.1 
Nocturnal very low glucose events/person/week 0.3 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.5 0.2 ± 0.4 
Parameter2 WeeksThird MonthSixth Month
Low glucose events/person/week 4.9 ± 4.9* 2.9 ± 4.4 2.8 ± 3.0 
Nocturnal low glucose events/person/week 1.3 ± 1.6* 0.8 ± 1.4 0.8 ± 1.0 
Very low glucose events/person/week 1.2 ± 2.3 0.8 ± 1.5 0.7 ± 1.1 
Nocturnal very low glucose events/person/week 0.3 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.5 0.2 ± 0.4 

Data are mean ± SD.

*

Friedman test and subsequent pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference of the first 2 weeks compared with the third and sixth months (P <0.05); no other variables were found to be statistically significant using statistics appropriate to the distribution.

In reviewing complaint data for the safety population active on the system for 6 months (n = 75), two adverse events were identified; one user had a hyperglycemia event of unknown severity, and one user had a cardiac event that resulted in death (but had not used the system for 2 days before the event). In both cases, investigation indicated the system was working as intended (i.e., functioning and issuing alerts per system settings) in the time frame of the event. Neither adverse event occurred within the cohort meeting the CGM analysis criteria (n = 58).

Bigfoot Unity is a relatively new and unique, U.S. Food and Drug Administration–cleared (13), interconnected smart pen cap diabetes management system. It incorporates CGM data, HCP-directed dose recommendations for long- and rapid-acting insulin analog pens, real-time alerts for low glucose, and reminders for dosing long-acting insulin. System data are collected passively to the Cloud for HCP review.

In this cohort of early adopters for whom 6-month use data were analyzed retrospectively, 76.4% had used CGM previously, but 96.4 and 92.7% were new to using smart pens and diabetes apps, respectively. Compared with baseline A1C (8.4%), we observed a similar change in GMI (7.3%) in the subsequent system-use time periods analyzed, indicating an approximate 1% improvement. A similar improvement (0.9%) was observed in the subset who had used CGM previously, with greater observed improvement (1.9%) in the small subset who were new to using CGM. Consistent with the observations of other studies (14), the magnitude of the observed difference was larger (∼2% observed here) in a subset with suboptimal glycemic control (baseline A1C ≥8%).

Considering the mean age of the cohort of 62.0 years, mean TIR and GMI results (64.2 and 7.3%, respectively, at 6 months) demonstrate close adherence to established glycemic targets (1517). A low number of nocturnal hypoglycemia events (mean 0.8 events/person/week in the sixth month) were observed, and the relatively short time spent in the low and very low hypoglycemia ranges overall (mean 1.4% of time <70 mg/dL and 0.2% of time <54 mg/dL in the sixth month) were below established clinical recommendations of 4 and 1%, respectively (1517). Other parameters such as the mean percentage of sensor use time and mean coefficient of variation (79.0 and 30.0, respectively, in the sixth month) were also within established guidelines (1517).

Established American Diabetes Association clinical guidelines for nonpregnant adults with diabetes also recommend maintaining 2-hour postprandial glucose <180 mg/dL (17). In our 6-month analysis, on average, 2-hour postprandial glucose fell within this range when the system displayed an HCP-recommended correction dose (173.9 mg/dL) and when no correction was suggested (159.8 mg/dL). These data support the importance of the system displaying clinician-directed meal doses and correction dose recommendations when appropriate.

We evaluated several parameters pertaining to patient engagement with the system. For an overall proxy of engagement, we estimated an average 14 interactions with the system per day, including sensor scans, dosing, and app and cap interactions, in the third and sixth months. Engagement was statistically greater in the first 2 weeks of use (Table 3), which may be partially the result of interaction during training on the system and enthusiasm or interactions needed to learn to use a new management tool. Nonetheless, this observation may be related to the observation of statistically greater TIR (and lower GMI) in the first 2 weeks compared with the third and sixth months (Table 2). Sensor scan data were consistent with other studies evaluating use of FreeStyle Libre CGM sensors (18). Given that the system is intended for once-daily, long-acting insulin dosing, the finding that the average number of long-acting doses per week was 6.7 in the third and sixth months of use is encouraging. The average of 1.1 long-acting dose alerts per person per week is relatively low; data showing that ∼73% of such alerts were followed by a dose taken within 2 hours of the alert demonstrate good engagement with the system with regard to taking long-acting insulin. For meal doses, the system does not capture data regarding times users are eating, but given other studies’ findings that most people using an MDI insulin regimen take three rapid-acting injections per day (19), our findings of an average of 2.7 and 2.6 rapid-acting doses per day in the third and sixth months, respectively, suggest minimal missed meal doses. Importantly, the system use data along with glycemic outcomes support minimal missed insulin doses overall in this cohort of people using an MDI regimen.

One benefit of connected systems are their ability to support telehealth and population health management; this is particularly relevant given the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (2023). Although there is increasing discussion regarding the likely future importance of connected insulin pen systems and the need for standards for data integration (10,23), there is currently a paucity of published clinical data (2427). Therefore, although relatively small, this study is an important contribution to the available literature.

Limitations of this report include the retrospective nature of the analysis, small sample size, lack of a control group, and self-reported adverse event data. For example, the lack of a control group of people not using the system limits interpretation of system-specific effects on glycemic control.

An additional limitation is that, because of the retrospective nature of the study, A1C values were limited at baseline (available for 51 of 58 individuals) and even more so after system initiation (58 values available for only 30 of 58 individuals). This lack of A1C data may have been related to reduced clinic visits and A1C monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic (21,22). Nonetheless, our analysis of available A1C data with a corresponding GMI suggests a strong correlation and average error of 0.13%, which is lower than the 0.3% A1C threshold often considered to be clinically meaningful. These findings reinforce other literature demonstrating the strong correlation between A1C and GMI and support using GMI as a proxy of A1C (12,28), although there are reports of potential mismatches between A1C and GMI (29).

Finally, we combined data from individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, as the overall data were deemed poolable both statistically and based on clinical judgment. The type 1 diabetes subgroup was very small (n = 9), which limits interpretation, but there may be a difference in time spent with glucose <70 mg/dL between individuals with type 1 and those with type 2 diabetes (4.0 vs 1.0%); these findings are consistent with other studies in similar MDI populations (19,30).

The prospective BURST study and other studies will be needed to further investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety data of the Bigfoot Unity system.

We report here the first real-world data from individuals with insulin-requiring diabetes using the Bigfoot Unity system for 6 months within an MDI therapy regimen. These data indicate that, for this cohort consisting primarily of older adults with type 2 diabetes who were on MDI therapy with suboptimal glycemic control, using the system has the potential for rapid and durable improvement in glycemic control. Most individuals in this cohort were not new to using CGM but were new to using smart pens and support apps, suggesting that HCP-directed meal and correction dose recommendations and patient engagement with the system may contribute to the reduction we found from a mean baseline A1C of 8.4 ± 1.8% to a mean GMI of 7.3 ± 0.8% after 6 months of system use.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all of the early adopting clinical centers for their dedication to helping individuals with diabetes. They also thank all of the early adopting individuals using the Bigfoot Unity system for their diabetes management.

Funding

This work was funded by Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc.

Duality of Interest

B.S.B. has received consulting fees and is on a paid speakers bureau for Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc. J.B.T., B.O., S.V., and J.K.M. are employees of Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc. F.N.S. is a former employee of Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc.

Author Contributions

B.S.B. contributed to the study conceptualization and resources and participated in the investigation, data curation, and writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. J.B.T. contributed to the conceptualization and methodology and participated in data curation and visualization and writing of the manuscript. B.O. contributed to the conceptualization and methodology and participated in data curation and visualization, formal data analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. S.V. contributed to the methodology and participated in data curation, software management, formal data analysis, and writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. F.N.S. contributed to the conceptualization and methodology, was responsible for project administration and supervision, and participated in the writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. J.K.M. contributed to the conceptualization and methodology, was responsible for project administration and supervision, and participated in writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript. J.K.M. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

1.
Garg
SK
,
Rewers
AH
,
Akturk
HK
.
Ever-increasing insulin-requiring patients globally
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2018
;
20
(
Suppl. 2
):
S21
S24
2.
Whiting
DR
,
Guariguata
L
,
Weil
C
,
Shaw
J
.
IDF Diabetes Atlas: global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2011
;
94
:
311
321
3.
Lipska
KJ
,
Yao
X
,
Herrin
J
, et al
.
Trends in drug utilization, glycemic control, and rates of severe hypoglycemia, 2006–2013
.
Diabetes Care
2017
;
40
:
468
475
4.
Polonsky
WH
,
Fisher
L
,
Earles
J
, et al
.
Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale
.
Diabetes Care
2005
;
28
:
626
631
5.
Farsaei
S
,
Radfar
M
,
Heydari
Z
,
Abbasi
F
,
Qorbani
M
.
Insulin adherence in patients with diabetes: risk factors for injection omission
.
Prim Care Diabetes
2014
;
8
:
338
345
6.
Peyrot
M
,
Barnett
AH
,
Meneghini
LF
,
Schumm-Draeger
PM
.
Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational Global Attitudes of Patients and Physicians in Insulin Therapy study
.
Diabet Med
2012
;
29
:
682
689
7.
Pickup
JC
.
Are insulin pumps underutilized in type 1 diabetes? Yes
.
Diabetes Care
2006
;
29
:
1449
1452
8.
Page
P
,
Verstraete
DG
,
Robb
JR
,
Etzwiler
DD
.
Patient recall of self-care recommendations in diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
1981
;
4
:
96
98
9.
Heinemann
L
,
Fleming
GA
,
Petrie
JR
,
Holl
RW
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Peters
AL
.
Insulin pump risks and benefits: a clinical appraisal of pump safety standards, adverse event reporting, and research needs: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group
.
Diabetes Care
2015
;
38
:
716
722
10.
Klonoff
DC
,
Kerr
D
.
Smart pens will improve insulin therapy
.
J Diabetes Sci Technol
2018
;
12
:
551
553
11.
Baliga
B
,
Tillman
J
,
Olson
BP
,
Vaughan
S
,
Sheikh
FN
,
Malone
JK
.
The first real world experience with Bigfoot Unity: a three-month retrospective analysis [Abstract]
.
Diabetes
2022
;
71
(
Suppl. 1
):
68-LB
12.
Bergenstal
RM
,
Beck
RW
,
Close
KL
, et al
.
Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
2275
2280
13.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
.
Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System 510(k) substantial equivalence determination decision summary 2021
.
Available from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/K202145.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2022
14.
Billings
LK
,
Parkin
CG
,
Price
D
.
Baseline glycated hemoglobin values predict the magnitude of glycemic improvement in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: subgroup analyses from the DIAMOND Study Program
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2018
;
20
:
561
565
15.
Battelino
T
,
Danne
T
,
Bergenstal
RM
, et al
.
Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
1593
1603
16.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee
.
13. Older adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022
.
Diabetes Care
2022
;
45
(
Suppl. 1
):
S195
S207
17.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee
.
6. Glycemic targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022
.
Diabetes Care
2022
;
45
(
Suppl. 1
):
S83
S96
18.
Haak
T
,
Hanaire
H
,
Ajjan
R
,
Hermanns
N
,
Riveline
JP
,
Rayman
G
.
Use of flash glucose-sensing technology for 12 months as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Ther
2017
;
8
:
573
586
19.
Beck
RW
,
Riddlesworth
TD
,
Ruedy
K
, et al.;
DIAMOND Study Group
.
Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial
.
Ann Intern Med
2017
;
167
:
365
374
20.
Phillip
M
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Close
KL
, et al
.
The digital/virtual diabetes clinic: the future is now. Recommendations from an international panel on diabetes digital technologies introduction
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2021
;
23
:
146
154
21.
Fragala
MS
,
Kaufman
HW
,
Meigs
JB
,
Niles
JK
,
McPhaul
MJ
.
Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic: reduced hemoglobin A1c diabetes monitoring
.
Popul Health Manag
2021
;
24
:
8
9
22.
Hooker
SA
,
Truitt
A
,
Anderson
JP
,
Kane
S
,
O’Connor
PJ
,
Sperl-Hillen
JM
.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on type 2 diabetes care delivery
.
Clin Diabetes
2022
;
40
:
442
448
23.
Wolpert
H
,
Polonsky
WH
,
Rodbard
D
.
Insulin metrics: need for development of consensus standards for reporting of insulin dosing data
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2021
;
23
:
522
526
24.
Adolfsson
P
,
Hartvig
NV
,
Kaas
A
,
Møller
JB
,
Hellman
J
.
Increased time in range and fewer missed bolus injections after introduction of a smart connected insulin pen
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2020
;
22
:
709
718
25.
Edwards
S
,
He
X
,
Wang
W
, et al
.
Use of connected pen as a diagnostic tool to evaluate missed bolus dosing behavior in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2022
;
24
:
61
66
26.
Galindo
RJ
,
Ramos
C
,
Cardona
S
, et al
.
Efficacy of a smart insulin pen cap for the management of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over trial
.
J Diabetes Sci Technol
2023
;
17
:
201
207
27.
Gomez-Peralta
F
,
Abreu
C
,
Fernández-Rubio
E
, et al
.
Efficacy of a connected insulin pen cap in people with noncontrolled type 1 diabetes: a multicenter randomized clinical trial
.
Diabetes Care
2023
;
46
:
206
208
28.
Al Hayek
AA
,
Sobki
SH
,
Al-Saeed
AH
,
Alzahrani
WM
,
Al Dawish
MA
.
Level of agreement and correlation between the estimated hemoglobin A1c results derived by continuous or conventional glucose monitoring systems compared with the point-of-care or laboratory-based measurements: an observational study
.
Diabetes Ther
2022
;
13
:
953
967
29.
Perlman
JE
,
Gooley
TA
,
McNulty
B
,
Meyers
J
,
Hirsch
IB
.
HbA1c and glucose management indicator discordance: a real-world analysis
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2021
;
23
:
253
258
30.
Beck
RW
,
Riddlesworth
T
,
Ruedy
K
, et al.;
DIAMOND Study Group
.
Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA
2017
;
317
:
371
378
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/journals/pages/license.