Slashdot Mirror


The Artificial Pancreas For Diabetics Is Nearly Here

the_newsbeagle writes: It's the tech that type 1 diabetics have long been waiting for: An implanted "closed-loop" system that monitors a person's blood-sugar level and adjusts injections from an insulin pump. Such a system would liberate diabetics from constant self-monitoring and give parents of diabetic children peace of mind. Thanks to improvements in glucose sensors and control algorithms, the first artificial pancreas systems are now in clinical trials.

95 comments

  1. Awesome by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pretty amazing advance. Now I wish they'd do the same for the thyroid. My wife had hers removed due to cancer nine years ago, and has to manage her thyroid levels via synthetic thyroid hormone pills, which, while effective, are crude and require regular testing to make sure she's not hyperthyroidic or hyothyroidic.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Awesome by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      require regular testing to make sure she's not hyperthyroidic or hyothyroidic.

      How regular is regular though? Taking a test once every 3 months and adjusting your medication up or down a fraction of a milligram is an inconvenience. But it's a lot better then having to test 4-8 times a day and making significant changes to the dosage level due to what was ate, activities planned, illness, and how the body reacts to all of that. As a diabetic myself, I'd trade in an instant having to deal with hyper/hypo-thyroidism over diabetes any day.

    2. Re:Awesome by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except that it isn't an instant. Insulin takes effect pretty darned quickly. Thyroid changes can take days or weeks, and the synthetic hormones themselves actually have to be taken under specific circumstances, as absorption into the blood stream orally requires no significant intake of food. My wife takes her medication early in the morning and then cannot eat for something like three hours.

      Having an artificial thyroid that would more closely monitor TSH (thyroid-stimulating hormone, the way your body monitors and adjusts thyroid hormone levels is complex) and adjust actual thyroid hormone levels directly would be far better in the long run.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Awesome by thegameiam · · Score: 1

      To deal with the "no food" issue with synthroid, I think right before bed works pretty well.

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    4. Re:Awesome by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      You would need a lot more research that (I don't believe has been done) on how often you really need to adjust your thyroid. As cdrugde mentions, thyroid testing is done infrequently - on the order of months. To have an implantable system that fired off that infrequently is probably not really worth it. Dogma is that thyroid hormones don't change that much - at least a clinically noticeable values.

      Most of the thyroid replacement research these days seems to be around the issue of 'minor' thyroid hormones, mostly T3. Even with this issue, we don't have good data. And T3 is produced at about 10% of the rate of T4 (the traditional thyroid hormone) so it isn't some scarce little molecule.

      But if you really look closely at how much we know about things like this, it's pretty disappointing. This sort of research is slow and very expensive. Given that thyroid pills are pennies and that people do 'pretty well' on that treatment, the impetus to improve things is small.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Awesome by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Agreed, my girlfriend has graves and has decided to keep her thyroid in the slim chance that a cure will be found. That, and she's not big on the idea of ingesting radioactive iodine to destroy a part of her body, malfunctioning or not.

    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would need a lot more research that (I don't believe has been done) on how often you really need to adjust your thyroid. As cdrugde mentions, thyroid testing is done infrequently - on the order of months. To have an implantable system that fired off that infrequently is probably not really worth it. Dogma is that thyroid hormones don't change that much - at least a clinically noticeable values.

      Most of the thyroid replacement research these days seems to be around the issue of 'minor' thyroid hormones, mostly T3. Even with this issue, we don't have good data. And T3 is produced at about 10% of the rate of T4 (the traditional thyroid hormone) so it isn't some scarce little molecule.

      But if you really look closely at how much we know about things like this, it's pretty disappointing. This sort of research is slow and very expensive. Given that thyroid pills are pennies and that people do 'pretty well' on that treatment, the impetus to improve things is small.

      I am a type one diabetic with hypothyroidism. The difference is huge. If I take too much insulin I go into a coma within the hour. If is screw up my synthroid I have to fix it within a year (maybe half a year). This is a big deal, but I am a programmer and do not trust computers to do this - yet.

    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the anti thyroid meds stop working or the goiter just gets too big even with the meds ( I managed to stall for just over a decade on Tapazole), Surgery for the win! The total thyroidectomy was outpatient, and recovery was very quick. not a fan of the radiation option, too much chance to get stuck with thyroid eye disease as a side effect.

  2. Security! by chrispatch · · Score: 1

    Hopefully not an afterthought !

    1. Re:Security! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I dropped in to mention...

      It's bound to be upgradable via some wireless specification with little to no thought for security.

      At the next Security Conference, they'll be monitoring for said device, extracting records just because they can - hopefully not stupid enough to actually reprogram the pumps to do something malicious.

    2. Re:Security! by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      Being diabetic I have looked into some of these gen 1 devices that either monitor glucose or deliver insulin (not both). They are designed to network with each other but you can turn those features are off, and some don't have any networking at all.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    3. Re:Security! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would not change your glucose , it would stop adding insulin. The adrenal gland is responsible for changing the glucose level, and would still be working.

    4. Re:Security! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, not added were I expected.

    5. Re:Security! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, based upon my research as a buyer. No one really wants to talk, and most of what I've heard isn't encouraging.

      Some attention has been given, and there have been some talks about people figuring out that security sucks on existing equipment, but nobody important is worrying enough about it yet.

  3. No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even forgetting the security issue, going around with a pump and injection line connected all the time is a lot more of a pain in the ass than current methods. Also, it can't make judgements based on future activity - you might want less insulin than normal because you're about to embark an on 3-hour bike ride, which if you take your regular dose, will make you hypoglycemic, pass out, and wake up in an ambulance or the hospital (insulin efficiency increases with activity level, which is why you need less insulin when you're about to be active for any period of time).

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:No thanks. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My sister would disagree with your assessment, and she's been a diabetic since she was 4 years old(31 years of shots now). If my great aunt was still alive, she'd be jumping for it too since she'd been a diabetic for ~70 odd years. There are plenty of methods to avoid hypoglycemia from working out, this in itself is a huge step in the current pump a needle in you every 2/4/6/8 hours that exists now.

      The biggest problem is with kids and getting them to do monitoring, tests, etc., since many of them don't understand not doing something like that will kill you. It's a concept that a 4 year old can't get, no matter how simple you explain it to them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:No thanks. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Why would this device not just adjust your glucose levels during the bike ride? I am pretty sure that is exactly what it would do in that situation.

      I get the feeling someone did not RTFA.

    3. Re:No thanks. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Even forgetting the security issue, going around with a pump and injection line connected all the time is a lot more of a pain in the ass than current methods. Also, it can't make judgements based on future activity - you might want less insulin than normal because you're about to embark an on 3-hour bike ride, which if you take your regular dose, will make you hypoglycemic, pass out, and wake up in an ambulance or the hospital (insulin efficiency increases with activity level, which is why you need less insulin when you're about to be active for any period of time).

      I'm rather amazed that you don't believe a computer somehow cannot monitor the "future" in real-time , as was suggested when using the Dexcom continuous glucose sensor in the hardware design.

      Remember we're trying to remove the human element here, which can easily be identified as the point of weakness as well as the maintainer.

    4. Re:No thanks. by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My understanding is that there isn't a direct relation between what's being read from the sensor and what is actually in the blood. The glucose sensor just senses the amount of glucose in the blood. So if it gives a reading of x, and then gives a dose of y units of insulin to counteract, it doesn't know that you're going to start running in 1 minute which will decrease the glucose levels further than it expected to based on the amount of insulin delivered. So, now you're going to be low on glucose. The only way to do that is to add glucose to the blood. Assuming this system does this, it can bring the blood sugar back up. However, it also doesn't know about the chocolate bar you just ingested which will again add glucose to your system in the near future.

      For a system like this to work, it has to make constant tiny adjustments to your insulin and glucose levels to ensure that it always remains in a certain safe zone. Scott Hanselman did a pretty good write-up a few years back. It's really kind of depressing when you look into the current state of affairs. The diabetes industry seems to be more concerned with making money than actually solving people's problems.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course your beta cells don't know about any of this either and they do OK. The do sense stress hormones, so if you're worried, they might pick up on the impending run. Otherwise, they make do with blood glucose levels.

    6. Re:No thanks. by danlip · · Score: 2

      A normal functioning pancreas can't predict the future either. All it can do is react to what it is sensing, just like the artificial one. It may be more finely tuned, better sensors, better algorithms, etc, but none of that represents anything that couldn't be incrementally improved in the artificial pancreas.

    7. Re:No thanks. by sjames · · Score: 1

      A real pancreas doesn't know you're thinking of going on a bike ride either.

    8. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wound an artificial pancreas operate that way? I assume the issue with the current planning based system is to minimize the number of needle pricks necessary to keep a person alive. I would think that an artificial pancreas would release much smaller amounts of insulin over many more "injections" instead of a few larger doses a day.

    9. Re:No thanks. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Of course your beta cells don't know about any of this either and they do OK. The do sense stress hormones, so if you're worried, they might pick up on the impending run. Otherwise, they make do with blood glucose levels.

      Absolutely true, but I'd be interested in the latency in the new device compared to a pancreas. Existing pumps and continuous monitors have some latency associated with them, which means they'll never do quite as well as an actual pancreas if you're suddenly going to change your rate of glucose rise/fall.

    10. Re:No thanks. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The pancreas releases glucagon which causes the body to release glucose. Without this there is a real danger of this device lowering blood glucose too far.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    11. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CGM monitors do not measure the Blood glucose level the measure the glucose level in the interstitial fluid. This is what causes the 10 minute lag between what your real BG is and what the CGM monitor reports. For a system to be closed-loop and work really well it needs to be able to do one of two things: It needs to be able to record a true BG level in real-time and then deliver a VERY fast acting insulin or the system needs to be aware of what you are expecting to eat, what exercise you've just done, what exercise you're expecting to do, are you sick, are you under stress, how are you responding to your infusion site, etc... I vote for a cure and not a treatment. There is no financial incentive for a cure.

    12. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Messed up above, but the body does not work that way. The pancreas adds insulin, there are feedback mechanisms that monitor and correct using the adrenal gland to add glucose if needed. Diabetics still have that. It does not need to be improved.

    13. Re:No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Yes, there are methods of avoiding hypoglycemia when working out - but they're reactive, not anticipatory. Until they also include a sugar pump, forget it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The pump can't add glucose. Your body has a limited store of glycogen in the liver that it can draw on, after which you need calories quickly.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A normal functioning pancreas won't ever put you into insulin shock either. Type 1 diabetics don't have a normally functioning pancreas, or they wouldn't be Type 1 diabetics, duh!

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No, but it has real-time measuring, not a 10 - minute+ delay. Also it's much finer grained in it's operation than the device.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would this device not just adjust your glucose levels during the bike ride? I am pretty sure that is exactly what it would do in that situation.

      I get the feeling someone did not RTFA.

      That is what took so long, developing the algorithm and safety protocols in place on a semi closed loop device.
      Insulin pumps that do not have this functionality have been around for many years, the difference here is this new one can change insulin delivery rates without the wearer needing to tell it to .. in response to changes in blood sugar levels alone.

      I wear an insulin pump , and have for years, and I work out and ride motorcycles. I have only passed out one time back before I had the pump. The pump is considerably safer than shots, (especially for someone involved in activities like I am) and provided this can deal with sensor errors and other little stumbling blocks gracefully, it would be considerably safer still. The normal assumption (Diabetics past all the time) of problems shows the ignorance of the poster named BarbaraHudson.

    18. Re:No thanks. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the needle pricks are no big deal any more. They used to hurt a lot more than now, but the finger stickers are sharper, the amount of blood you need is next to nothing (and can be drawn from places other than the finger), and the injections are pretty much painless. And now they're experimenting with inhaled insulin.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course your beta cells don't know about any of this either and they do OK. The do sense stress hormones, so if you're worried, they might pick up on the impending run. Otherwise, they make do with blood glucose levels.

      type 1 diabetics do not have functioning beta cells that is the general problem. The raising of blood sugar, the action of glucagon is not a problem for some type 1 diabetics. Some type 1 diabetics, myself included still have "Alpha"cells that produce glucagon by the pancreas, from there , raising of blood sugar is a task performed by the adrenal glands and the liver and the muscles (adrenal glands produce cortisol and the liver and pancreas store glycogen that on demand can be converted to glucose and released into the blood, raising blood sugar.)

      stress hormones only come into play in a minor way, they are not as influential as insulin, exercise and glycogen in determining blood sugar behavior.

    20. Re:No thanks. by tirerim · · Score: 2

      Um, insulin pumps have been around for about 30 years, and very common for the past 15. They're already a huge improvement over injections. This level of "artificial pancreas", though, not so much. The glucose sensing technology, though dramatically improved from its debut a decade ago, is still primitive: it uses interstitial glucose, and lags behind actual blood glucose, requiring regular calibration with fingersticks. Combine that lag with the fact that a non-diabetic pancreas starts producing insulin even before food hits the bloodstream, and it's impossible for the system to react to food in a timely way. Worse than that, though, is the fact that insulin effectiveness isn't constant. It's less effective when you're eating a lot of fat, and it's more effective when you're exercising (and for some time after). Just measuring glucose levels isn't enough to tell the system how to react. Maybe eventually they'll manage to combine this with enough other sensors to actually be a real artificial pancreas, but I think that's a lot farther off, and we'll probably have effective islet cell transplants without immune rejection by then.

    21. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it has real-time measuring, not a 10 - minute+ delay. Also it's much finer grained in it's operation than the device.

      Please. Think first before saying bullshit. It takes about a minute for your blood to get pumped through your body. Hence, there is at least that 1 minute lag, perhaps more. There is no such thing as "real time measurements" in your body. There is ALWAYS lag, even with anticipatory reflexes.

      Furthermore, muscles don't use glucose from your blood as you may think they do. Muscles use ATP, and it takes some time for that to synthesize. There is a reason why long distance cyclists will bonk despite eating and keeping their blood sugar relatively high.

    22. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction to above, Liver and Muscles store glycogen, not liver and pancreas.

    23. Re:No thanks. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So is the pancreas, it's a reactive system to external demands as well. So I guess it needs a sugar pump...no wait...it either dampens or allows glucose production by the liver as needed. Seriously, do you know how this stuff works? I suppose that could be a problem of course if you don't have a liver...but then again, if you don't have a liver you're going to have more serious problems anyway.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:No thanks. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You can have insulin shock with a normally functioning pancreas, it can happen from a variety of things, including working out and sudden shocks to your system from stress, traumatic events, and so on. Saying it can never happen is assine.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latency is what sucks most of all. It doesn't actually measure the blood glucose. It measures the glucose levels in the fluids right beneath your skin and the latency can be up to 20 minutes. So what is REALLY needed is a better way to measure actual blood glucose. One that doesn't require you to actually remove blood from the body or insert stuff in your veins.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_glucose_monitoring#Continuous_glucose_monitoring

    26. Re:No thanks. by dens · · Score: 1

      Scott is right, I have been hearing about a cure since 1978. There have been 2 big breakthroughs in that time: the insulin pump and the CGM. Both of these have made my ability to control my blood sugars in immeasurable ways.

      What I would really love to know is why I (ok, my insurance) am still paying roughly the same amount for diabetes supplies as I did 30 years ago: test strips (~$1 each, I test 5-8 times/day), pump reservoirs, infusion sets, glucose sensors ($95 for a 6 day sensor) and let's not forget the $5,000 pump that last 5 years on average, so let's say $1k/year. This is an expensive hobby. It's worth every penny to me, and even after insurance, I average $3-4k/year out of pocket. I wonder how someone who make half what I make pays for this.

      My guess is that this cost is largely profit for the manufacturers. After 30+ years on the market, the strips are probably 1 penny or less to produce. There's lot of money to be made perpetuating maintenance of diseases.

    27. Re:No thanks. by dens · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's late.

      Both of these have made my ability to control my blood sugars in immeasurable ways.

      should be:

      Both of these have improved my ability to control my blood sugars in immeasurable ways.

      Will Slashdot ever get post editing ability? It's a shame there aren't any geeks here to help make this a reality. ;-)

    28. Re:No thanks. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The feedback loop will be longer than with a natural pancreas, so the control won't be as tight, but I'm not so sure it will be that loose. In any case, manual management by injecting a bolus of longer but slower acting insulin analogs isn't going to be as good as a natural pancreas either. The pump will be doing continuous injection of faster and shorter acting insulin.

      If that proves inadequate, they could always add a couple demand buttons, one to indicate the patient has started eating (the natural pancreas does get signals for that) and another to indicate exercise is beginning. Still not perfect, but it has real potential to provide much better control than manual injection.

    29. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The diabetes industry seems to be more concerned with making money than actually solving people's problems.

      As a twenty year type 2, I have a hard time dismissing this outright.

      No one seems to be interested offering any improved pharm or tech that reduces the cost of this disease for the patient.

      Every advance comes at an increase to an already considerable financial load.

      I have a fairly well controlled moderate case and my medications are running about $4k/yr.

      That's a car payment.

    30. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right.
      It needs a feed-forward component to the system.

      position of implantment is an issue too.
      I can check a leg, arm, and belly reading in the same minute and they are all different by 20%.

  4. Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised this hadn't been done earlier. Can't be that difficult to monitor glucose and release insulin accordingly?

    1. Re:Only now? by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      Most test strips are one time use. The big issue here isn't that they can monitor the levels, but that they can do it accurately. Even now there is a variance of about 10% in the current models. Accuracy also goes down over usage and the last thing you want is to send some poor sap into hypoglycemia because the pump got a wrong reading.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    2. Re: Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of technicalities. Which is why this news should be taken with a very large grain if salt. First, implanted glucose monitors still don't do a very good job -- poor accuracy and time delay (due to metabolics) among them. Second, the pancreas (and the whole system) does a lot more than release insulin based on glucose level.

      This is a good step, but nowhere near a "solution".

  5. If this actually becomes available.., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... This would be the greatest moment in my life.

  6. Not a pancreas by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since it does not produce it's own insulin it is not an artificial pancreas. It is an automatic insulin pump. It still has to be refilled with insulin periodically. It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.

    1. Re:Not a pancreas by nordee · · Score: 1

      You're being pedantic. You could make the same argument about an artificial heart. "But it requires an outside power source! It's not REALLY a replacement for the heart."

      Yes, there's some marketing going on, but the article clearly states that the advantage of this system is that it works without user input. That may not seem like a big deal to you, but as the father of a Type 1 Diabeted I can assure you that it's actually a very significant change.

      --
      still no sig
    2. Re:Not a pancreas by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      The pancreas produces several hormones. The automatic insulin pump deals with only one. Therefore an automatic insulin pump is not a replacement for a pancreas. The heart moves blood and that is all. An artificial heart replaces that function. The other think is that artificial hearts are not a permanent solution. They get replaced with organic hearts.

      That may not seem like a big deal to you,

      I never said it was not a big deal.

      It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.

    3. Re:Not a pancreas by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The pancreas produces several hormones. The automatic insulin pump deals with only one. Therefore an automatic insulin pump is not a replacement for a pancreas

      True in the pedantic sense, but it doesn't need to be one. The problem in juvenile diabetes isn't that the whole pancreas shuts down. Only the parts that make insulin ("the Isles of Langerhans") do. The rest of the pancreas remains perfectly functional. I suppose that they should have really called it an "artifical Isles of Langerhans", but that's pretty clumsy.

    4. Re:Not a pancreas by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      I suppose that they should have really called it an "artifical Isles of Langerhans", but that's pretty clumsy.

      Sorry but still incorrect. The Islets of Langerhans produce all the hormones and not just insulin. Even the specific type of Islets that produces insulin produces another hormone.

      Beta cells producing insulin and amylin

      What you call pedantic others call accurate. It is unnecessary to hype a significant advancement by over stating what it is.

    5. Re:Not a pancreas by Livius · · Score: 1

      I would agree that "pancreas" is an exaggeration but it's really good news nonetheless.

    6. Re:Not a pancreas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does seem to produce extra apostrophes so it is not a possessive pronoun. It's means it is.

    7. Re:Not a pancreas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's means it is, to be accurate.

    8. Re:Not a pancreas by Skapare · · Score: 1

      and you can't store too much ... body temperature, time, and all that. production as needed would be better.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  7. But is it hackable by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just wondering, can it be modified to work with caffeine?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  8. Re:Type 2 coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a wild shitlord appears!

  9. Re:Let's all hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone didn't read the article.

  10. Released in 2014 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the article, you can buy one now!

    I assume the title was written by some one waiting for theirs to be delivered.

  11. It's not an artificial pancreas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a self regulating insulin pump. That's a wonderful for type 1 diabetics, but the pancreas produces more than just insulin.

    Glucagon is the primary axis hormone to insulin. A true artificial pancreas would monitor both hormones to optimize that relationship.

    1. Re:It's not an artificial pancreas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glucagon's job is to dump insulin reserves from the liver when needed. This would be redundant, no?

  12. Re:Type 2 coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICIOYlZTr8

  13. Gilding the lily diminishes it. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Unless the device makes insulin on demand, it ain't artificial pancreas. It releases insulin stored in a tank, mimicking the action of the pancreas, but the tank has to be refilled from external sources of insulin. But still it is a great advance. Why do they have to ruin a good article by needlessly hyping it in the title?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. People out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully not an afterthought !

    There are people out there - I don't know any of them - who would take a wooden baseball bat to any shithead's body who hacked one of his loved one's device. In a secluded place, of course. Then said person would burn that bat - and good luck proving it was him.

    Of course, a thinking person would have the hacker convicted first, then sue in civil court for all of his assets before crippling him - said person is a decent person who doesn't murder people.

    The above is just revenge fantasy and would never happen in real life.

    1. Re: People out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully not an afterthought !

      There are people out there - I don't know any of them - who would take a wooden baseball bat to any shithead's body who hacked one of his loved one's device. In a secluded place, of course. Then said person would burn that bat - and good luck proving it was him.

      Of course, a thinking person would have the hacker convicted first, then sue in civil court for all of his assets before crippling him - said person is a decent person who doesn't murder people.

      The above is just revenge fantasy and would never happen in real life.

      Such a "hacker" would either be a type 1 diabetic himself, or someone who studied a lot about insulin pumps and diabetes with the intent of doing in someone with type 1 diabetes. I don't know about breaking his legs with a baseball bat or killing him. Suing him for hundreds of millions of dollars is more my speed and it would be an open and shut case if it were provable that he did it. The burden of proof would be on the diabetic though, because the defense argument would center around the diabetic making it up and being in really bad control and trying to blame it on someone that clearly had bad blood with them. You would need irrefutable proof such as radio equipment they used and spectrum analyzer recordings of the transmissions they made, internet records of them researching how to do the hack online from their computer or recordings of them admitting they did it to someone when they don't know they are being recorded.

      Security is a better idea. Try this.. make a conductive fabric cover for the pump and the glucose sensor (granted you won't be able to use your glucometer's wireless functions, but your CGM and pump would be unable to be affected by radio transmissions being beamed at it from someone far away. An ounce of prevention is worth a pounding from a baseball bat apparently.

    2. Re: People out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "good luck proving it was him" is exactly the sort of comment I would expect from someone who doesn't know SQUAT about forensics :-) It's safer just to assume you WILL get caught, and not do it in the first place.

  15. $ type 2 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything coming around for type 2 diabetics?

    1. Re:$ type 2 ? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Cute. Yes, lifestyle changes make a difference for about 20% of type 2 diabetics, but for the rest, treating the disease is elusive. There are a lot of type 2 diabetics who are not overweight and follow healthy eating habits. There are a lot of obese people who never develop type 2 diabetes.
       

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    2. Re:$ type 2 ? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I would be interested in seeing the details the lifestyle changes tied to those numbers if you happen to have them. Everyone I've spoken with has had tremendous success with change of diet and exercise. Maybe this was still incorporating the standard american diet with only moderate changes?

    3. Re:$ type 2 ? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I was quoting the percentage off the top of my head. The number is actually lower. Here is an article on the CDC study that the numbers come from:

      http://www.livescience.com/256...

      I've been living with diabetes for over 12 years now. At one point I had lost 110 pounds through diet and exercise. At first my situation improved, but over time it got worse. I now live life as a type 1 diabetic.

      You can certainly live better with diabetes through lifestyle changes, I'm not going to argue that. But for most type 2s, treatment will eventually still include medications and even insulin injections.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  16. Insulin Resistance by briancox2 · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is an engineering breakthrough. But we are still waiting on a medical breakthrough.

    The real problem in diabetes is not limited to having the correct amount of insulin in the blood in real time. The problem that makes diabetes so hard to treat is that a person's cells develop insulin resistance, requiring larger and larger doses of insulin to break down sugars correctly.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    1. Re:Insulin Resistance by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, actually, there are two kinds of diabetes. In one type (adult-onset diabetes or Type 2 diabetes) the body becomes less and less responsive to insulin. This is the kind associated with obesity, and the pump won't help this much. The other type (juvenile diabetes or Type 1 diabetes) is caused by the body stopping production of insulin, generally because the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas die off. The body remains completely responsive to insulin; the problem is that there isn't any any more. This will be a godsend for people with Type I.

    2. Re:Insulin Resistance by butchersong · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why do we need a medical breakthrough? The solution is simple -low carb diet, nutrient dense food and moderate exercise. Once you get things under control after a year or so you can work on introducing healthy carbs back into your diet. You want to boost insulin sensitivity you have to exercise. I myself have dealt with this and have spoken with many others over the course of several months as they turned their heath around as well.

    3. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't have Type I Diabetes.

      Insulin resistance is a Type 2 Diabetes issue.

    4. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oversimplification, most long term type 1 diabetics suffer from type 2 *as well* to varying extents.

    5. Re:Insulin Resistance by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are at their furthest apart still symptoms of the same lifestyle problems.

      No, Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease, not a symptom of a lifestyle problem. It's not caused by lifestyle either.

    6. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a source on that? 23 year type 1 whose insulin sensitivity hasn't changed much after the initial honeymoon period (as a teenager).

    7. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a type 1 with a family history of type 2. I've never had any complication from type 2, but I am only as likely as anyone else. The complications of type 1 are incredibly bad, much worse than type 1. Type 1 is normally before age 30, type 2 is normally after 40 .

    8. Re:Insulin Resistance by dens · · Score: 1

      Same here. I have had type 1 diabetes for 37 years and an insulin pump for 29 years. I also use a CGM. My insulin sensitivity hasn't changed in at least 30 years, except temporarily due to other factors, e.g. if I have a cold or some other infection that makes me less sensitive to insulin (once my sugar was out of whack big time for 2 weeks after a cortisone shot in my shoulder)..

      My problem is with low blood sugars. I play a lot of sports and the trouble is that this causes my insulin to affect my blood sugar much more than normally and it isn't something a CGM can properly handle yet, especially with the lag. If I play basketball, the 20+ minute lag of a CGM can men that it thinks my blood sugar is 140 when it's really 50 (way too low). In addition, after shooting hoops or lifting weights, my insulin sensitivity can be affected for up to 48 hours after that.

    9. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you and your ignorance, seriously.

    10. Re:Insulin Resistance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I did just recently have a doctor lecture me that they are no longer differentiating as strongly between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in their treatment approaches. They are at their furthest apart still symptoms of the same lifestyle problems.

      I would not trust a doctor that believes that type 1 (pancreas not producing the insulin hormone because its cells die from an autoimmune reaction, often at a young age) should be treated in the same way as type 2 (where the pancreas has to make extra insulin, because the cells becomes less responsive to it)

  17. Re:Let's all hope by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    You must be new here.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  18. Hope robopancreas is secure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here's hoping that whoever brings "robopancreas" to market pays very, very serious attention to security. Security right now in medical devices is woefully poor and the medical device industry really needs to get their act together. There are evil folks out there who create malware that target insulin and morphine pumps...

  19. Good progress, but NOT "Nearly Here" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the biggest problems about an automated system like this is when it goes wrong. As it stands, the Dexcom (sensor) isn't very reliable compared to how reliable it needs to be. This means that you'll need to continue monitoring your glucose by other methods, otherwise you'll run the risk of the sensor mis-reading and sending you into hyperglycemia, or worse yet a diabetic coma (if it reads high and gives you insulin when it shouldn't). If you're measuring your glucose (literally) multiple times a day to double check the Dexcom's work, then you're really not that much better off than you were before (since at that point you could have just dosed yourself with a non-automated pump while you were at it, based on that information).

    This is to add to the critiques about the difficulties about the sensor not knowing about food/exercise that's about to happen.

    It's all great work that needs to continue, but it's really just not "Nearly Here."

  20. There is a lot of confusion and bad information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a lot of confusion and bad information on the subject of type 1 versus type 2 diabetes and how they relate.

    I have had Late onset Auto-immune Diabetes of Adults, for close to 20 years, and have been involved in research programs studying it and can state a number of observations that might clear up a lot of the confusion:

    Each case of type 1 or type 2 diabetes can be classified as an amount of insulin resistance relating to an increasing inability to control blood sugars and the body reflexively releasing ever increasing amounts of insulin to try to keep the blood sugar in check over time, leading to greater weight gain (in terms of body fat) and more insulin resistance in a run-away effect. This is your classic model of type 2 diabetes. Occasionally this is the triggering factor for an auto-immune component that starts to result in an auto-immune attack on the pancreatic beta cells, in particular an attack on by products of the activity of a gene in the beta cells referred to as TXNIP (google it to find out more.) This can lead to an inability to produce insulin and a condition that is similar to classic type 1 diabetes (the auto-immune kind)

    In other people, early in childhood diabetes starts with the auto-immune component and the insulin resistance is less of a problem until later and usage of injected insulin comes into play and it is hard not to over-use the insulin to a point that some insulin resistance like the type 2 cases becomes apparent.

    Several attempts are going on in research programs to stop the auto-immune attack on the pancreatic beta cells , both through adjuvant therapy that reduces the Killer - T-cells that attack the pancreatic beta cells and reducing the activation of the TXNIP gene in the beta cells, thereby causing the killer auto-immune T-cells not to have as much of a target to attack. In both cases there is some component of insulin resistance that needs to be dealt with to reduce the amount of insulin that it takes to keep blood sugars stable, and this is achieved through some approach using diet, exercise and drugs to achieve this where appropriate. Not all doctors are aware of this but increasingly they are.

    In my view, the best approach is to determine the level of insulin resistance that is present and deal with it, and to introduce some level of reduction of the TXNIP gene expression and some level of reduction of the activity of auto-immunity due to the GAD killer t-cells.

    Everyone is different and this is not a complete picture of what can cause insulin resistance leading to type 2 diabetes or all of the cases of type 1 style diabetes (there are a number of auto-immune causes that can happen) This model I have outlined here though can fit in my case, where someone has a family history of type 2 and ends up with LADA style type 1 diabetes, because usually it starts out with mild insulin resistance and an inability to lose body fat that gets worse and then devolves into an auto-immune diabetic condition.

    In my case, I use an insulin pump along with diet and exercise and other drugs to reduce insulin resistance and the research I am involved in is using adjuvant therapy to reduce the auto-immunity. There are other research groups that are using drugs to reduce TXNIP activity (mice have been cured of type 1 diabetes and ended up with a greater functional beta cell mass than the controls) leading to beta cell regeneration. With an insulin pump or artificial pancreas, the challenges are :

    1- having an accurate measure of how much insulin it takes to keep blood sugar stable for any amount of carbohydrate grams and how much blood sugar is reduced by how much insulin

    2- A constant measure of how the relationship to insulin activity changes over the course of the day (because it can vary as much as 3 to 5 times) and how the changes change over the course of months or days as a net effect. The point is that insulin activity and insulin resistance is a constantly moving target.

    3- Having an accurate measure of the amount o

  21. Cost by wlowe84 · · Score: 1

    Affordability will be an issue for most. My wife used to use an insulin pump, the pump cost around five grand. The consumables necessary to keep it operating month after month, year after year add up quickly. The initial cost of the device is nothing compared to the cost of maintaining it. After a few years it became impossibly expensive for us to continue to use. Back to syringes and vials for us. Pumps can work great, but if it takes the house and car payment to use them, quality of life can become an issue.