Why I don't believe most of the headlines on tech progress in diabetes technology

Share D-News
1

… So I do believe a few of them. But very few, and always with a healthy amount of cynicism. What I NEVER believe is the timing implied in the news releases—this brand new technology supposedly will give us this or that advance “soon.”

Here is why I think you should keep a healthy amount of cynicism. The example of such a new technology is Raman spectroscopy, which promises, potentially, noninvasive glucose measurement. I had to mention it because I actually recently posted something about it: Non-invasive glucose monitoring from MIT

I heard about it first in 2015 (the year my son was diagnosed as a T1). But it had been in the news since at least 1997:

Over the next few years, “good news” news kept on coming (there were many more, I am only including a few):

The $1,000 question is—after 28 years of technology development, when, if ever, will an actual Raman spectroscopy portable CGM device appear on the market?

I don’t mean to say it will never happen. What I do think, though, is that 99% of what we read is hype. As someone who has worked in technology development for 30+ years, I know it takes a very long time to take a technology from lab to market. So we are better off assuming nothing until we see something on the market.

All the more important for us all to support We Are Not Waiting initiatives of all kinds. We cannot expect much from the regulated world or from the medical device industry—we can count much more on our community.

11 Likes
2

I was a test subject for a company trying to develop a device using a non-invasive visual sensor clipped onto your ear lobe, and I can only date it as prior to 9/11/01 based on where I was working at the time. So there was an attempt to productize this technology even back in about 2000. It was the only time I volunteered as a test subject (I had attempted to volunteer for the DCCT but was disqualified because of a lack of retinopathy) and I found it strange.

Strange because my BG was fairly low when I went in, so I assumed this would be perfect for their testing. But instead of testing my BG as it was, their protocol was to give me glucose to cause a high, then test once my BG reached whatever level they wanted. Just seemed like a wasted opportunity for them. Anyway, that company disappeared soon after.

Another technology that has seemed tantalizing for a very long time is the encapsulation of pancreas cells to prevent immune response destruction. I talked to a researcher at Joslin who was working on that (in dogs) back in the 1980s. That is still talked about today, but human trials have never done well.

1 Like
3

I actually disagree with this last statement. The Not Waiting group used breakthrough technology developed 100% by the medical device industry. Not Waiting group did nothing to develop the pumps and CGMs that were tied together with their software. The medical device companies were clearly moving in the same direction and released their devices shortly thereafter.

Where the Not Waiting group was innovative was their ability to write the software and release it in a shorter time scale not constrained by FDA approval. They have been similarly unconstrained in their ability to release new version with new features as often as they want (very often) sometimes without much testing.

I absolutely agree they should be supported, but don’t think we should overstate their contribution.

1 Like
4

I remember it being referred to as the “dream beam” back in the 90s and it does seem destined to remain a dream.

That said, I agree with Jag. Yes, it was a long time coming and yes it can be glitchy and imperfect, but CGM is revolutionary and as far as I know brought to us by the lucrative medical device industry.

5

If we work together; that’s the difficult part.