As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and (often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen.
>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use
I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?
As a fellow type 1 diabetic, I'm thrilled with any new projects - especially a project like this which would benefit not only type 1, and is not only targeted for type 2.
> how soon this could possibly be available?
I've been following various type 1 research for as long as I can remember (runs in the family, myself etc.), and I remember a similar enthusiasm back when glucose watches were first in production. I recall it taking years before they had an actual product (this was before the Panic Room featured watch, which wasn't a glucose measurement, but anyway.. to give you a time reference), and sadly, even when they were available from more than one manufacturer, they were still not widely available to patients (i.e. wanting to get one).
None the less, I will be following this eagerly.
On a personal note, awolf: how do you like your current monitoring system (apart from the mentioned downsides)? I've considered needle monitoring many times, but never gone for it (for idle office work I wouldn't mind, but I see it as a hinder in my personal life re: flexibility)
PS: Accuracy is not even a factor until the technology is further along, and that was one of the main issues with the watches back in the day: measuring glucose levels through human skin was not accurate or reliable enough. So I'd add years of testing at least, and maybe tweaking aswel (as the watch project did).
The movie in which a child has a severe low blood sugar, on the edge of death, and her mother administers here a large shot of... insulin! I could not believe it when I saw it. The treatment given in the movie would have killed her in no time.
For future reference, in case anyone comes across a diabetic experiencing a seizure. Do not give insulin in this case. This will lower blood sugar further. What they need is to consume anything with sugar, if conscious. If not, they need a glucagon injection. These typically come in a clunky red container, containing a large needle filled with saline and a vile containing a white powder. Shoot the saline into the vile, shake up the vile, extract the solution, then shoot the solution into the affected person's leg ASAP. Do not give anyone insulin under any circumstances. If you give someone glucagon with a high blood sugar, they will probably be ok. If you give someone insulin with a low blood sugar, they will likely be dead. /PSA
This has always been one of my biggest fears. People always assume diabetics need insulin, when in most cases of unconsciousness, insulin could be deadly.
I carry a note in my diabetes-bag with me (next to that glucagon-injection) saying: "Don't give me insulin. Ever!" I translate that to other languages when I travel abroad.
My biggest fear is to go out because of low sugar, then someone with good intentions killing me, for wanting to help me.
For diabetics, you are usually injecting insulin, which should be rotated around parts of the body (any fatty area) to avoid scar tissue build up.
In this case, however, I was talking about glucagon, which is only given in emergencies (to messed up to ingest sugar). Glucagon needles are much larger than insulin needles, and can be shot straight into the leg through jeans. The arm would work too, but might be more likely to leave soreness. The main thing is to administer it as quickly as possible.
I think it is just easier for people to slam a needle into a leg anywhere than think about how to inject a needle into someones arm. As above it was stated you don't even need expose skin but can do it through clothes.
they have to prove that the monitoring it provides is accurate, measures what they think it does (I.e. no false positives or negatives), and doesn't v endanger the users lives (I.e. doesn't blind them I see the proposed led being an issue here since it can go off at night, and likely that it doesn't have a severe lag time that would reduce the likelihood of a life saving response because the user isn't checking blood sugar otherwise). I think all of these are definitely solvable issues so I would be surprised if it doesn't get anywhere. the specialized nature of the contact is likely not going to be an issue since the market is desperate for something better (every diabetic I know would switch to this in a blink). what I wonder is what the communication with the device is going to be like, smartphone would be nice but some of the smart watches I think would be better, and how is it powered too.
I'm sure it will be expensive, but doubt it would need to be disposable: current CGMs rely on injecting a metal sensor into subcutaneous fat. After about a week your body starts to heal around it and the sensor becomes ineffective. Do to the nature of the application process, there is no way to re-inject a sensor once used. The sensors are on the order of $50 each, so $50/week.
Expensive hardly matters to me. As long as it is less than ~$30k per 10 years, I would pay. Insulin pumps already cost $10k+, and do not provide as much value. This kind of tech is life extending for those of us who need it, so price kind of moot (up to a point). How much would you pay per year to get an extra decade of life?
>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use
I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?