Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Helmut on May 31, 2012 at 4:58pm

Thanks. I just read on CWD that the smaller pods are delayed. I hope that this means that Insulet will skip the Abbott PDM and give us the OneTouch PDM right away.

Permalink Reply by Mike W on May 31, 2012 at 5:20pm

Is there a schedule for phasing out the Abbott PDM or is it just based on when people next have to upgrade?

Permalink Reply by Helmut on May 31, 2012 at 5:56pm

This is my interpretation of Insulet's last earnings call: There will be no accelerated phase-out. Insulet is wondering whether LifeScan will eventually pay the cost for an accelerated phase-out. If I had a say at LifeScan, I would pay for the accelerated phase-out. The PDM costs $100 which LifeScan should be able to recover from one month worth of strips.

Permalink Reply by Mike W on May 31, 2012 at 6:20pm

Thanks - makes perfect sense. Insulet for its part stands to garner the benefits of higher gross margins for the new pods which under ideal circumstances would mean great motivation for a swift introduction of that product absent the need for fda approval....

Permalink Reply by suezq1949 on May 9, 2012 at 5:05am

Hi: I also find that the new butterfly strips run lower than the old style strips. My A1C also went up a bit with the introduction of the butterfly strips. I do not do a correction now unless I get a number in the low 60's. Used to correct at 70. Funny, I emailed Abbott Monday about getting a new meter but haven't received a response yet.

Sue

Permalink Reply by Scott Wilkins on May 10, 2012 at 1:49pm

Reading this whole thread was interesting. I switched last year from using Freestyle meters to another brand because I thought my A1C was off from my meter readings too. I swtiched to Accu-Chek and got much better results. I thought it was just me or a bad reader or something, now I see that it's not. Of course I'm starting on the Ominpods this week, which means I'll be switching back to the Freestyles. At first I was amused at this change of events with the BG strips and all, but glad to find this thread so that I know 1. I was not crazy last year. And 2. what to do about the strips in my new Omnipod PDM unit.

I am keeping the lancet device that came with the Accu-Chek though, it's much nicer than the Freestyle lancing device. It uses a barrel cartridge of needles and the needle is much smaller making the pain a bit less. http://www.amazon.com/Accu-Chek-Accu-Chek-Multiclix-Device/dp/B003U...

Thanks Helmut!

Permalink Reply by Ladybug on August 23, 2012 at 12:36pm

I think that i am seeing the same issues with the meter in the pdm reading low.... i only started on the omnipod in Jan of this year (i am in Canada and it was just approved here) my averages on my pdm are not tying into my A1C results... dont get me wrong the pump has been great for lowering my A1c but according to my PDM and doing the math I should have an a1c about 50% lower. Does anyone have any recent experiance with if the coding issue is still a problem... I think that i am going to give code 17 a try and see if that helps get me closer.

Permalink Reply by Sarah K on August 23, 2012 at 12:51pm

Me and a few of my friends have run several testing sessions with code 18 and it seems to be the most accurate in comparison to the new, more accurate meters like the VerioIQ and the Accu-chek Nano. I have my endo appointment in 48 days (yeah, I'm a nerd... I count down the days... keeps me more accountable), so we'll see how the difference in codes have helped (or not).

Permalink Reply by ATRannals on August 24, 2012 at 7:13pm

When I switched to the OmniPod and the Freestyle strips, I also noticed some lower readings. My old meter was a OneTouch Ultra Smart that I've used for many years.

I took about 30 reading with both the OneTouch and the PDM and the PDM averaged almost 15 points lower with a standard deviation of about 10 points.

When I switched the PDM to code 17 and ran another 30 readings the average difference was about 3 points with a standard deviation of about 9 points.

At that point I figured it was close enough and didn't bother trying code 18. I've been on Code 17 ever since.

My $.02,

Alan

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page