In Vivo is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

TheraSense FreeStyle

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

Blood glucose monitor launched Aug. 1 is "virtually pain-free," since it uses only 0.3 microliters of blood taken from the arm and obviates the need for larger fingertip blood samples, the company claims. Cleared via 510(k) in January, the device uses "less [blood] than other blood glucose monitoring systems on the market," according to the Alameda, California firm. The FreeStyle meter uses coulometric technology to minimize the needed sample size and retails for $75; test strips used with the meter are priced at $39 for 50 or $69 for 100

You may also be interested in...



Podcast: Scrip’s Asia Team Dissects Pharma’s Response To Coronavirus

Scrip’s on-the-ground team in Asia talks about how the regional and wider pharma industry and policymakers have responded so far to the spreading coronavirus outbreak, with a focus on the expedited development of potential drugs and vaccines.

Lilly’s Cyramza Wins Slim Nod, But Steba’s Tookad Falls Hard At US FDA Panel

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee votes 6-5 that ramucirumab’s benefit/risk profile is favorable in first-line lung cancer, but 13-2 that pivotal trial data do not support approval of Steba’s vascular-targeted, photodynamic therapy for low-risk prostate cancer.


UK Sunscreen Claims On ‘Negligible’ Difference In SPF Strengths Don't Add Up

Advertising Standards Authority says Green People Co. misled consumers with claims SPF 30 formulas filter out only 1% less UVB rays than SPF 50, trying to draw a negligible difference between the formulas. The claims appeared in a direct mailer and on the brand’s website in July 2019.
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT013710

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel