Needle-free testing device...

[orpy]

...any hopes on this being accurate enough?

Needle-free device measures blood sugar - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/05/07/diabetes.sugar.reut/index.html)

[CaptainMike]

This is one of the technologies which appeared most promising several years ago, and then got hit with a couple of setbacks, sounds like the prototypes are working at about the same accuracy as the current meters. No mention of cost though, I'm sure this thing will be expensive until the economics of scale kicks in.

[Scratch]

This is one of the technologies which appeared most promising several years ago, and then got hit with a couple of setbacks, sounds like the prototypes are working at about the same accuracy as the current meters. No mention of cost though, I'm sure this thing will be expensive until the economics of scale kicks in.
It's an interesting question about how much they would cost. If the devices work without any sort of use-dispose-replace item, then the manufacturers won't have the golden eggs of testing strips with glucose meters of present.

On the other hand, if these infrared meters work, insurance companies may be quick to move them onto durable equipment that'll be covered because the insurance won't have to pay for all those testing strips.

[CaptainMike]

It's an interesting question about how much they would cost. If the devices work without any sort of use-dispose-replace item, then the manufacturers won't have the golden eggs of testing strips with glucose meters of present.

On the other hand, if these infrared meters work, insurance companies may be quick to move them onto durable equipment that'll be covered because the insurance won't have to pay for all those testing strips.


That is a vey good point, there are a couple of conspiracy theories that Roche and others have jammed up the development and approvals process for many of these alternative testing/monitoring technologies for just that reason, that the meter and strip business runs into the BILLIONS of $$$ per year.

[Funnygrl]

I couldn't tell from the article whether this was a continuous monitor or not. If it's not continuous, I really see no reason to bother with it. I'm sure it will be more expensive, and I have no problem with fingersticks.

[Scratch]

I couldn't tell from the article whether this was a continuous monitor or not. If it's not continuous, I really see no reason to bother with it. I'm sure it will be more expensive, and I have no problem with fingersticks.
Even if it's not continuous, think of how much you and your insurance won't be spending on the strips. Or how you might not have to worry about not being able to test enough because you're running low towards the end of a prescription period for testing strips.

Those are real advantages, along with how it could give the fingers a break from the constant state of tenderness they have from being bled so many times a day.

Plus there is always the consideration of sanitary complications.

[duck]

I think most surveys on the topic indicate testing is not followed for no other reason than people don't like to prick their fingers (either because it hurt, the stigma of blood, etc). I can see how this would be appealing to people.

[Raisin]

This was posted on CNN's website. How nice this would be if it turns into a reality....:D

Needle-free device measures blood sugar - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/05/07/diabetes.sugar.reut/index.html)

[wl1901us]

I wouldn't hold my breath. A similar device was announced in 1992 and never came to market. This technique is a lot trickier than it appears at first glance.

In 1996, Futrex stopped work on such as device and was subsequently sued by the SEC for alleged fraud regarding a private debt funding effort. See http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr15061.txt ; for the details.

Many of these sorts of high tech efforts are really nothing more than attempts to raise debt or equity and then make off with the funds. Certainly legitimate technology companies exist and occasionally do great work. However, if you see an advanced announcement like this, be very very wary. Plus, even if they have a legitimate device, the effort required to get FDA and other related clearances can alone bankrupt a small startup.

Regards,

Mike

[JediSkipdogg]

Devices like that are very promising. The problem is though, there are alot of qualities that must be met for it to work. The toughest one is that making sure it finds blood and a good enough stream of it.

There is in the works one that reads the vessels in the eyes. It has a high success rate of accuracy and reliability (getting the same result twice in a row.) The big positive of the eye is that the vessels are alot easier to find and aren't burried under different thicknesses of skin.

I do see these devices as promising and hope that eventually they can get a reliable one that they can turn into a continumous monitor via a patch worn somewhere on the skin.

[MJB]

I think this will come to pass; it's a question of when and how many bucks.

I don't particularly mind sticking my fingers as much as the time I burn every time I test. Load the lancing device, fish a strip out, get it into the meter, prick my finger, milk my finger, test, throw out the strip, put everything away.

I would test much more often with a device like this.

[owlyn]

It was interesting, but I find it hard to believe that infra-red can be used for such a precise measurment through so many variables (air temp, humidity, skin thickness, blood flow, and there's probably more that I don't know about). And what does "85% accuracy" mean? It's right 85% of the time? It has only a 15% window instead of the 20% we have now? Accurate compared to what?

I especially liked this description: "Diabetes is a condition when the pancreas produces too little or no insulin. Unable to store sugar, the person loses a key source of energy and is at risk of heart disease, kidney failure, nerve damage, blindness and other eye diseases." They only left out about 98% of the correct description. They made it sound like the risk of heart disease, kidney failure, et al is due to losing a key source of energy. Makes me question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

[Dervish]

It was interesting, but I find it hard to believe that infra-red can be used for such a precise measurment through so many variables (air temp, humidity, skin thickness, blood flow, and there's probably more that I don't know about). And what does "85% accuracy" mean? It's right 85% of the time? It has only a 15% window instead of the 20% we have now? Accurate compared to what?

The article also states:

"For decades, diabetics have monitored their blood sugar using conventional instruments, which require them to prick their fingers and draw blood, up to several times a day.

While these have an accuracy rate of around 80 to 85 percent, the process is less than ideal."

So I'd say that your guess of it being within 15% of actual glucose level is correct. In any case, if fingersticks are 80-85% accurate and the IR device is at least 85% accurate, then they both would seem to be comparable, regardless of what the percentage of accuracy actually means.

[wiseguy]

I would rather they focus on making the meters we use now more accurate.

[Harold]

:topic:
Moved thread from type 2 and merged with another thread started in Monitoring later. So if responses seem a little out of whack that is why.

[owlyn]

The article also states:

"For decades, diabetics have monitored their blood sugar using conventional instruments, which require them to prick their fingers and draw blood, up to several times a day.

While these have an accuracy rate of around 80 to 85 percent, the process is less than ideal."

So I'd say that your guess of it being within 15% of actual glucose level is correct. In any case, if fingersticks are 80-85% accurate and the IR device is at least 85% accurate, then they both would seem to be comparable, regardless of what the percentage of accuracy actually means.

It is an easy conclusion to draw, but that assumes that "accuracy" means the same thing for both meters. Considering that the part of the article we know (explaining diabetes) is a bit off, I can't assume that the writer knows what he is talking about regarding accuracy of meters.

[JasonJayhawk]

I see snake oil written all over the device. China has not been so honest on its supply of medical goods to this and other countries (look at all the cases of glycerol being replaced with diethylene glycol, which has killed thousands of people throughout the world - for example, see Report traces tainted medicine to China - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506/ap_on_he_me/panama_tainted_medicine))

Water *severely* interferes with infrared wavelengths. Guess what's in the blood?

I don't see it ever happening.

There are a few other companies in the USA that have been doing this to get money from venture capitalists.

The common algorithm to their scam is to attach their technology to technology that we already "somewhat understand." For example, in the Chinese article, they say, "It works like the fever detectors." Sure, we understand that this technology exists, but most people have no true understanding of how it works, and think it is sort of "magical" -- so they can jump to thinking, "Well, if that works, the blood glucose monitoring technology must work magically, too!"

[frige]

I'll get one of these if it's out before the Freestyle Navigator.

-john

[JasonJayhawk]

I'll get one of these if it's out before the Freestyle Navigator.

-john

Funny!

(But in all seriousness (did I just say that?), this product will never come out. It's an investment scam. Don't you think if it worked, everyone would have one by now? There were about 3 companies in the USA that tried the same, and all of them disappeared after wooing the venture capitalists out of millions of dollars.)

[mzteacher]

greetings all...i am new here...just been lurking around...testing the water....in yesterdays mail i received from my local hospital mills-peninsula...it has a diabetic research institute and the hospital newletter says "we are working with new drugs, new types of insulin and new devicesfor measuring glucose." says dr. klonoff "we are currently testing a glucose monitor that will read the blood sugar level without needing to prick the finger."
i don't know if they have to prick any thing else.....

[nneighbour]

As far as I know this doesn't exist, but would you guys be interested to a monitoring system that required an implanted device? This is just something random I've thought about. I think it would offer a lot more freedom, especially if it's just something that's inserted under the skin like those microchips used on pets.

[Dervish]

Since you mentioned implants used on animals... My main concern would be the privacy implications. If it's a wireless transmitter, then that signal can be picked up by any nearby receiver and potentially used to track you. I wouldn't be too comfortable with that, regardless of how convenient or effective the implant may be for its designated purpose. If I could be convinced that it wasn't sending out any information which could conceivably be used to track or identify me, though, I'd be all for it.

[frige]

It's not specifically a tracking device being implanted.
Given the signal/battery/power tradeoffs, I doubt the signal could be picked up more than 10 feet away.

If you are going to go all conspiracy theory on us, I'd be more concerned about your cell phone....your credit card...your grocery card ('food-int').
-john

[someone]

Since you mentioned implants used on animals... My main concern would be the privacy implications. If it's a wireless transmitter, then that signal can be picked up by any nearby receiver and potentially used to track you. I wouldn't be too comfortable with that, regardless of how convenient or effective the implant may be for its designated purpose. If I could be convinced that it wasn't sending out any information which could conceivably be used to track or identify me, though, I'd be all for it.

The current CGMS units all use radio frequency to transmit the glucose readings back to the monitor. I don't see what the difference is with this. With the CGMS systems, you have to enter the serial number of the transmitter that you want data from. If it is that much of a concern, the data could easily be encrypted using the serial number as the key.

Either way, how could your blood glucose be used to track you? If such a device was available, reliable, and had a decent lifespan, I would get it in an instant.

[Dervish]

Either way, how could your blood glucose be used to track you?\

I doubt that I could come up with a (reasonable) way that the glucose level could be used. If it sends only glucose information and nothing else, ever, then I'd take one at the earliest opportunity. However, if the implant were to periodically transmit a serial number also, then that could be used for tracking.

I wasn't aware of current CGMS devices using the serial number like that, but I'd be less concerned about what a current-style CGMS (or cellphone, for that matter) transmits because they can be trivially turned off, left at home, or replaced. Unlike an implant.

I don't mean to suggest that I would expect a CGMS implant to be intentionally designed as a tracking device, but it would probably be usable as one unless it was specifically designed to prevent that.

[nneighbour]

I can actually see the benefit of it being a tracking device. Like a GPS chip in the monitor that gets turned on when your BG goes below a set number. That way if you were to have an emergency and pass out someone could get to you before it's too late. Like those medical panic button devices, but that it's only triggered once you hit 1 mmol/L or something. I think I would be comfortable with that.

[someone]

I doubt that I could come up with a (reasonable) way that the glucose level could be used. If it sends only glucose information and nothing else, ever, then I'd take one at the earliest opportunity. However, if the implant were to periodically transmit a serial number also, then that could be used for tracking.

I wasn't aware of current CGMS devices using the serial number like that, but I'd be less concerned about what a current-style CGMS (or cellphone, for that matter) transmits because they can be trivially turned off, left at home, or replaced. Unlike an implant.

I don't mean to suggest that I would expect a CGMS implant to be intentionally designed as a tracking device, but it would probably be usable as one unless it was specifically designed to prevent that.

They are probably required to have it transmit the serial number, so that you don't end up picking up someone else's signal. Like someone else here said though, the transmitter probably isn't going to go more than 10 ft.