VeriChip patents glucose-sensing RFID chip
By Paul Miller 
posted Nov 1st 2006 7:56AM
posted Nov 1st 2006 7:56AM
You know how we love to rag on VeriChip, but we really can't complain about the do-gooder nature of this chip patent awarded to its sister company, Digital Angel Corp. The described glucose-sensing RFID chip would allow for quick, painless and purportedly more accurate glucose concentration readings for diabetics who have the chip implanted. Of course, ever with an eye for commercialization, Digital Angel says the chips could also work for tracking diabetic livestock, an apparently common and costly problem. Still, we're sure the 230 million human beings with the disease won't mind sharing such quality-of-life enhancements with their animal brethren, and hopefully such commercializations will help Digital Angel keep prices low for the chips. We're a long way off from an actual product -- it seems like most of the required development, testing and FDA approval is yet to be accomplished -- but we'll be keeping an eye out for the chips in completed form to make life a whole lot easier for the diabetics among us.[Via The Wireless Report]
I wish you not hype these sorts of press releases up, particularly not when so little information is provided. The hard part is not the telemetry (relaying the information to an external display) -- technologies like this already exist and are proven to work well. The hard part is engineering a sensor that can accurately detect blood glucose over the long term without constant calibration and without having to double check the read against a finger stick test (and particularly with a _universal_ algorithm). The fact that this company is just describing the RFID part of this device, i.e., not the sensor, suggests to me that they have nothing worth getting excited about (never mind that they're not disclosing any sort of studies as to its accuracy). Having worked in the diabetes industry for companies that developed BG sensors of various sorts (especially continuous and implantable devices) I can tell you that the hurdles to this are very real and that many companies have tried and failed over the years. One such major problem which most devices like this usually face is that they quickly get covered in the body's own encapsulation tissue (the body sees the device as a foreign object and thus wants to protect itself). Other devices depend on the measurement of interstitial fluid measures which presents very significant accuracy and timing problems...
I fail to see what this company is bringing to the table especially when all they have right now, apparently, is just an idea (a patent), not even a product, and especially not one that has been approved. Hyping announcement this is just getting people's hope us falsely in all likelyhood (as have been done 1000 times before to diabetes).
Pete,
While I don't disagree with what you are saying, I appreciate the reporting. I mean come on, they said at the bottom that it wasn't in FDA testing, anywhere near completion etc. etc. I am a Type 1 diabetic and wear an inusling pump from Medronic Minimed (is that where you worked?) I always take these reports with a grain of salt, but it's good to know that companies are TRYING to make life a little easier for diabetics.
Products like this just make me more & more outraged by the type of press about diabetes, as if the ritual of checking my blood sugar, or injecting my insulin are the most inconvient, horrible side effects of diabetes. They are not! In fact, they are the most harmless, meaningless obsticles I face daily. They have become like brushing my teeth or taking a shower. It would NOT be 'life enhancing' & I demand that people who are not diabetic & who are researchers or doctors, stop assuming they know or, even worse, understand, what are 'issues' of diabetics. I am diabetic. And that is normal to me. I have an insulin pump, that I do not necessarily like. But, this chip, like the pump, is just one more way to attempt to 'make normal' the diabetic. To hide their diabetes. It is NOT OK to hide diabetes! It just promotes the myths & misconceptions around it. People need to see me checking my blood. They need to see me giving insulin. They need to see what happens when I'm really really low & can't fend for my self, or when I'm so high, I can't keep working. They need to see this so they can better understand what it is all about. They need to see this to initiate dialogue & ASK their diabetic friend what it is like. Hiding issues, in this horribly modern assimilationist attempt to normalize everything, so other people don't feel uncomfortable is asinine & NOT OK! I am not normal. I do not want to be. I have diabetes. I deal with it every hour of every day. I know my body inside & out because of it. & no attempt to hide it makes it go away!!
If there are going to be articles on diabetes, I want there to be articles directed towards family & friends & coworkers of diabetics - articles by diabetics - for an actual AWARENESS of what the disease means, how it effects the day-to-day living of people with diabetes, how it is psychological, physical, & often times uncontrollably painful. How lows & highs effect your ability to think clearly, to react 'appropriately', to function 'up to par', how diabetes can change your plans in a split second, how annoying it is when non-diabetics try to offer advise instead of listening to what the real problems are.
This devise does me no good, be it ready to be on the market or not. Checking my blood 8 times a day is not the worse thing about diabetes to me. It is the worse thing about diabetes for the people watching me who want to find this quick blanketed fix. This would not in anyway improve my lifestyle. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if I had nationalized health care. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if people that surrounded me (including my doctors) asked me what my issues are, instead of assuming they know more about my diabetes body than I do. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if there was 1 diabetes research group instead of 2 split by ignorant racist/classist issues. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if refined sugar wasn't everywhere you look. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if school lunches were actually edible for both my diabetes body & my non-diabetes body to digest. My diabetes lifestyle would be improved if there was a great awareness/understanding of what diabetes really is, instead of 'armchair doctors' relying on myths.
So, no, VeriChip, I will NEVER put an RFID chip in my body!
Mike,
Though the editors did indicate that Verichip's "product" hadn't completed testing, Verichip does not even have a proposed solution for an actual working product. As far as I'm concerned, Verichip's claims are equivalent to someone announcing that they've invented the cure to HIV, when, in reality, all they have is a new syringe (which is not the hurdle), oh, and the cure part, they're "going to work on that". In short, I don't see this as even a potential step towards the problem of continuous BG monitoring. Furthermore, I question the quality of this patent. It may serve as a hinderance to other companies with real products.
Having just read their patent ( http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7125382.html ) -- it seems that the essense their patent claims is implanting an RFID tag inside the body and attaching it to a BG sensor (which, to me, sounds like it is broad enough to apply to any electro-chemical sensor). They claim that the ability to use external radio power is a novel invention because it avoids the reliance on batteries (which usually have to be replaced periodically). Of course, what they fail to mention is that drawing power from radio waves is the essential component of RFID technology and that they did not invent it. If my quick reading is correct, this does have the potential to interfere with other device makes that wish to utilize RFID for their own sensors. [They do vaguely mention a "3 pin" sensor -- but their IP is much broader than that]
It's also worth mentioning that they filed this patent almost two and a half years ago (it was just approved now). I would at least expect to hear more detail:
1) on how this actually works
2) its measured accuracy
3) its expected lifetime
4) preliminary animal studies
if, infact, this is a sincere effort. The fact that this company is engaged in so many other ventures and appears to have no real experience with medical devices or life sciences in general makes me more than a little skeptical of their intentions.
If this were anything, my company would have already bought them.
JBo - who is your company??? Got anything in the pipeline relatively similar? I tried the CGMS from Minimed but you needed to still prick your finger, calibrate it etc. etc.
I too like to hear good news on diabetic stuff. It's nice to know that they are trying to alieve the frustration and pain with testing and such.
Blair,
I too am a diabetic and wear a pump - i test my sugar 10x a day . . . and i thank god everyday that I have a pump. I talk outwardly about my diabetes and everyone i know, knows that I have it. Your comments insinuate that we should not strive to find a cure or advance technologically to make things a little easier for diabetics. While I agree that non-diabetics need to be more well informed, I completely disagree with your comments regarding moving forward - I don't think there is a correlation between inventing (or improving upon) new products and someone wanting to "hide" their diabetes. You are alive and live a relatively normal life because of your pump and your blood sugar meter . . . you should be thankful. I appreciate the efforts of researchers, doctors etc. and hope that they never stop until we find a cure or a vaccine. Based on your comments and especially your last paragraph, it seems that you need to talk to someone .... bottom line is that every diabetics lifestyle would improve if they didn't have diabetes . . . and that's what I am hoping for. Either way . . . good luck.
mike,
i appreciate your thoughts. i think you misread some of what i wrote. i am by no means opposed to 'advances' or new technologies, & absolutely not against an attempt at finding a cure! that is absurd. i very strongly believe that this product would do more harm than good. apart of the 'hiding' is misleading for non-diabetics to think everything is o.k. & there is a lot of misunderstanding & assumptions that come along with that.
i believe much more in the awareness & knowledge surrounding diabetes for the greater public. i believe much more in the prevention & awareness around type II diabetes increasing as an actual epidemic in young children, specifically low income, & or people of color. i believe much more in address the issues at large on why the u.s. souther africa, & certain countries in europe are much more prone to diabetes. i am much more concerned at looking at why some countries don't even have a word for it, because it doesn't exist. all of this matters to me ever having been diagnosed with diabetes. & putting a false, plastic bandaid on my diabetes, is NOT an 'advancement'. it does not equal 'improvement' to me. like everything in our society the root problems are never addressed, thereby any ultimate possible solution can NEVER exist.
but, please, do NOT chalk up my frustration with the way in which diabetes is played out mythically in this society, to me 'needing to talk to someone.' that is just to short sited & again, not addressing any real issue, but hoping for this blanket fix with your eyes wide shut.
I'm also diabetic, and largely agree with the sentiments here.
However, i also play piano & guitar where the amount you can feel through the tips of your fingers is fairly crucial. I've tried AST (checking my glucose from my forearm) but sometimes have trouble obtaining enough blood. Any convenient & portable non-invasive glucose monitoring device is very welcome. Also, if this could be partnered to a watch or cellphone and can provide an accurate, quick response as a hypoglycaemia warning then even better.
I too have used the CGMS system (had a bad patch of hypos about a year ago, one of which resulted in me passing out just outside St James' Park London - thank god for the red cross), and whilst it's a step in the right direction, it doesn't address the issue of hypos for those of us who occasionally have no warning symptoms. Any research is good research.
blair,
Though I do not have diabetes, I do know do know much about the science and the industry that supports it. I can appreciate that pumps and the current sensors on the market are not perfect solutions. I know that they're not cures and that even with the latest equipment, diabetes is still is significant pain, hassle, and even presents very real medical complications. Nonetheless, insulin pumps and modern finger stick tests represent real advancement and have been proven to improve lifespan and quality of life with people with diabetes. Like most things in life, advancement comes incrementally usually. Having worked side-by-side with some of the engineers and business people that have brought these improvements into reaility, I can tell you that most of them are sincere, honest, knowledgable, intelligent, and hard working. A number of them even are type I's themselves.
These improvements do not usually come easily even if they're not cures (you'd be surprised how complicated modern insulin pumps are to engineer and bring to market). There is a not an insignificant amount of money being spent on developing cures, permanent treatments, and better solutions (e.g., closed loop insulin/sensor systems). Though I recognize that there are some dishonest characters out there selling false hope and poorly thought out devices and treatments, it is also a mistake to blindly label everyone out there as being ignorant or simple profiteers.
On another note, I do _not_ agree with you that nationalized healthcare would necessarily help you or other people with diabetes. The fact is that many countries with nationalized healthcare simply do not cover things like insulin infusion pumps at all or as widely as healthcare companies in the US do today (or, if they do, they're late to the game), treatments, training, and more. The fact is that state of the art healthcare is a naturally expensive task (despite wastefulness and abuses in some areas) and all nationalized health care systems, contrary to popular belief, have to take measures to reduce their costs to varying degrees (e.g., denying access to the latest procedures, medical treatments, devices, people of certain age, etc). Much of the treatments and medicine available to you (specifically as someone with health care coverage in the US in all probability) are almost certainly not available to individuals in many in socialized medicine programs throughout the world (including parts of western europe).
I might support a limited national healthcare system to provide certain critical coverage or perhaps a system which employers and individuals could pay into (which, btw, would require copays and other such cost controls). However, the idea that many people banter about, about having an everything-for-free healthcare system is not feasible and threatens what we have now (flawed though it may be). There is significant room for improvement in the US healthcare coverage, however many of the proposed solutions are both trivial and dangerous.
i have another comment about this. i also just really feel strongly that devises like this are classist & don't address diabetics at large. very few people will even be able to afford this item...very very few can afford the pump. these ARE issues for all of us, whether you, yourself, can afford the latest & greatest supplies or not.
i was in new orleans after the levees broke & worked with diabetics. only by default, i was working at a free health clinic & almost everyone that came in was diabetic & insulin dependent. not one person had a glucose monitor! not one. they were given temporary monitors, that were so old, you could not even by strips for any more. no one i saw would have been able to even buy a monitor, had we not given them out for free.
quote/unquote advances like these ONLY separate the already huge huge gap between the poor & the privileged, who are lucky enough to afford such items. it is not ok to think & act as though some people deserve medical advances in supplies more than others.
true advances would be addressing the social issue at large. true advances would be recognizing & dealing with the issue of diabetes growing as an epidemic. why not stop it before it starts? why not make it more manageable day to day within our environment (which needs to be created)? it just makes sense.
advances & diabetes being more manageable comes in many forms, thats really what im trying to say. it doesnt just have to come in the form of more plastic in my body.
Blair and Pete,
Thanks for the responses. Educated, calm, and informative . . . that's they way we should all approach these subjects. I see and uderstand you both and feel that this dialouge is constructive.
Here's to finding a cure!!!!!!! I wish you both the best.
blair what you are saying sounds like a case of the tail wagging the dog. how in the world can you say the issue of people not understanding diabetes is worse than the diabetes itself??
I have never ever felt ostracized or embarassed about my diabetes, and I'm sorry if you have, but the point of these advances isn't to shame us or make us hide our condition. It's to help us manage the diabetes--controlling highs and lows--in order to reduce the stress on our bodies. It's not about hiding your blood testing and insulin delivery; it's about new technologies building on new technologies until we have constant glucose management married with insulin pumps so that YES...our blood glucose is "normal", i.e. no more lost limbs, blindness, death due to poorly managed diabetes.
I'm an insulin dependent Type 2 on a pump. I am grateful for both the technology and the insurance carrier who pays for it.
Having said that, if someone doesn't continue the research to create new and better technology we'll never find out what can or can't be done. If you just look at the leaps medical science has taken in the last 100 years, then you have hope for the future.
The day when we have implanted bg sensors that can talk to our pumps and adjust our insulin automatically can't come too soon for me. Why? Because with this new technology we can hope for better control and ultimately, significantly reduce the complications of diabetes.
Which is, after all, what we all want most, short of a cure.
ptrader: "adjust our insulin automatically"
That phrase worries me. Considering the propensity of machines to malfunction, especially when mass produced, I don't fancy putting my life permanently in the hands of a portable life support machine.
Also, the inherent difficulties in creating an all-purpose rule to cover insulin requirements (with such variables as Metabolic rate and BMI being the easiest to configure) mean that that will most likely remain a pipe dream and that a cure is more likely to come first.
Jamie,
I respectfully disagree. Although some people over-trivialize the engineering and regulatory aspects involved with creating a closed-loop system, I suspect we'll see one within 5-10 years (and actual cure, one which does not depend on the use of anti-rejection drugs and things of that ilk, is likely much further away than that). The most critical aspect is getting an accurate continuous monitor on the market first with a universal algorithm that does not require re-calibration (without actually hooking it up to a delivery mechanism). No one has one yet out on the market, but technologies capable of this do exist and are in development. It is possible to develop an adaptive algorithm which can adjust for insulin sensitivity and other factors--it will just take some time and fairly long clinical studies to prove it is safe. Although insulin pumps can fail, they don't have to be 100% reliable to be used safely in a closed loop system (a backup plan would be necessary though). Furthermore, advancements such as MEMS technology promise to vastly improve the reliability and accuracy of insulin delivery (no moving parts, instant detection of occlusions, etc). Do not forget that once devices get cheap enough, one can build in redundacy that can go a great deal to improve the effective reliability too. The medical benefits of a closed loop system could well outway the potential risks for a significant part of the population in its earliest stages.
Furthermore, mass produced items are typically more reliable than those that are not. It depends on the standards to which they're engineered, manufactured, and tested.
Jamie,
I have to disagree. I think that the marriage of BG monitor and Insulin Pump is much, much closer to reality than a cure. Trust me, I wish it were the opposite. I understand your concern and that would be the choice of the individual with diabetes as to whether or not they would want to have a device that adjusts insulin automatically.
I actually don't see it as much different than what I do now. My pump is a machine that I fully rely on to keep my blood sugar as close to normal as possible. It is custom to my body. Of course machines aren't perfect, but I know my body well enough and there are various alarms built into my pump, that if something went wrong, I would know. I give myself insulin based off of the readings that I get from my meter and the carbs that I eat. I would welcome a singluar device that measures my BS and adjusts my insulin. It would be the closest thing to an artificial pancreas that we could have (besides an implantable pump which are sold in Europe but not in the states.)
I'm deliberately taking the pessimists point of view, since in medicine life's taught me that that's often for the best.
I dearly hope that you're both right.
All the best.