Bruce Jackson: Okay. Great. And then, with the glucose measurement specifically, what is the measurement that you’re using? And do you have like a target performance value that you’re going after?
John Mastrototaro: Yes, this is a great topic. First off, when we look at glucose, it is important for us to understand how this product is going to be used. In our clinical trials, we actually evaluate the product in people who have type 1 diabetes and we recruit people who are on a continuous glucose monitor today. So, when we conduct those trials, we have the continuous CGM waveform, we also have intermittent finger sticks that are drawn that are measured for glucose, and then we have our device. And so, we’ve got all three of those. And our goal in those trials is to assess how well and how accurate we’re able to track trends in glucose levels in these people with type 1 diabetes who have more (ph) in terms of glucose in general.
And so, we may track them through the course of many hours, maybe after they’ve had a meal where they’ve delivered insulin, and we can track the changing glucose levels, which may go from normal range up to an elevated level and then back down again. And we want to evaluate whether we’re able to track those changes. When we think about CGM devices on the market today in terms of accuracy, they all started with accuracies around 20% or 20%-plus. DexCom and Abbott who are maybe the gold standards today with accuracies within 8% of the truth. DexCom, for example, started 15 years ago with 26% average error, and Medtronic was at 21% and have gotten down to maybe 10% or 9%. It’s taken them many years to improve the accuracy from the 20%-s down to sub-10% average error.
When we’re evaluating our product, we will not be — although we are testing it in people with type 1 diabetes, our real focus in the future will be for people who have pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes not on insulin. The (ph) people with type 1 diabetes — million people, and the 4 million people who were type 2 on insulin, we’re going to leave those folks to the DexComs and Abbotts and Medtronics of the world and Senseonics, and we’re going to focus on the rank-and-file type 2 and pre-diabetes people who are many tens of millions of folks. And so, what we’re looking at in that population is really trying to identify major excursions in glucose levels, drawing people’s attention to those excursions, helping them understand why they’re occurring and what they could do to mitigate those moving forward.
That’s a lot about what we’re focused on. And so, accuracy is going to be something that needs to allow us to be able to detect those excursions, and we’ll be working with the agency the same way I did 20-plus years ago when we got the first CGM cleared through the agency. But I’m expecting that accuracy will not be equivalent to where the current invasive sensors have gotten, but they’ll be closer to where they used to be, and their utility will be really focused on people with type 2 or pre-diabetes, or folks who don’t have even that at all, but just want to make sure that they’re living an appropriate lifestyle so that they don’t become someone with type 2. So, I hope that answers the question, Bruce.
Bruce Jackson: It does. And congratulations on all of the progress, and thank you again for taking my questions.
J. Cogan: Thanks, Bruce. Operator, let’s go back to the webcast Q&A. Stacy, I think the next question or two can be for you. What are the goals for these product partnerships that you’ve launched? And can you tell us a little bit more about the Evie user experience? How are you differentiating Evie from the competition?
