Science has been figuring out ways to sidestep those dreaded finger pricks for years now, but it's not often that we hear of such a permanent solution as this. A crew of researchers from The University of Tokyo and BEANS Research Institute are in the process of developing a newfangled blood sugar sensor that "reacts to glucose and lights up inside the body." 'Course, injecting dyes into humans in order to receive interpretable signals ain't exactly new, but hydrogel is what makes this approach unique. As the story goes, this jelly-esque material can be implanted within the body, enabling blood sugar levels to be monitored and measured externally with no pain or irritation whatsoever. In theory, a monitoring system could trigger an alert as soon as the internal levels dipped or rose beyond a predetermined extreme, giving those with diabetes a maximum amount of time to get things back in balance. There's nary a mention of when this goo will be green-lit by the FDA, but there's definitely a video explaining everything just past the break.
@AlienSix I have type 1 diabetes and I can't remember the last time I pricked my finger. Doctor's always tell you to check it because you won't know how much insulin to take, because you don't know what your blood sugar is. This is bullshit. Just look at the carbs on your food. That's how much you take.
This looks like the beginning of a major breakthrough. If this "stuff" can me made long lived (> 1 year) and stable so as to give reliable and consistent results, then diabetics will have a major new tool at their disposal.
As the video said, it might even be possible to meter insulin (or whatever) into the bloodstrean without the patient even being involved in the process.
Imagine if this technology could be made generate tiny anounts of eelectricity in place of light. We could have a blood sugar powered source inside us. That could be used for many things from powering pacemakers to surgically implanted bluetooth headsets.
@Silroc Sorry, I don't think I understand the article. Have then taken a step toward curing diabetes or have they just found a more convenient way to do something?
@samiles Blood sugar monitoring is more than convenience - it's a necessity for us to live and current finger pricking is not as accurate as we need. My doctors were shocked that my daily bloodsugar tests and a1c didn't come close to saying the same thing.
Really, your comment was insensitive and shameful.
@Duke Sorry, I just don't really get it. As many of the other commenters (who have diabetes) are saying, it just seems like a pointless way to make money and doesn't really do anything. Which is what I thought when I first saw it.
@samiles personally This is a very welcome advancement if they can get this to the mainstream. I have a really hard time dealing with needles and many times when I have to do an insulin shot or finger prick it makes me very nauseous for a few hours or I black out. granted this is just a small example Im positive im not the only one who doesnt like needles.
and its ultimately small steps like this that lead to the cure for cancer,HIV, diabetes etc..they dont just magically stumble upon them.
Why don't they offer a better solution like integrate these sensors into iphone or android devices. Take it step further by syncing information to your computer so you can see a history of you blood sugar levels. On top of that offer a complete solution by adding a device that can monitor and inject insulin when needed according to these readings.
I just got diagnosed a week ago with type II... I wish there were a good app, and a dock-connector attachment for my iPhone 4, that reads test strips, and puts it directly into the log. They Bayer USB Glucometer is close, but I don't carry a computer with me, I carry an iPhone.
But an implantable sensor would not be bad... maybe someday a micro-sensor device could return current, accurate readings at any time, and trend information since the last upload, via RFID.
Anyone who is diabetic should check out Grove Instruments. www.groveinstruments.com They are working on a bloodless glucose monitor that performs very well. I have seen the device work and it is pretty amazing. It takes a long time to go through clinical trails, etc though.
We've been dealing with my son's diabetes for almost a year now. It seems that every time something new is announced, it is always 10 years from market. I understand the reasons, but wow is that frustrating. That said, this technology doesn't really impress me that much. They have a chemical that reacts to blood sugar levels. I prefer the approach that SmartCells is taking with smart insulin. Releasing insulin as the blood sugar goes up. Of course, they haven't moved anything forward with trials this year like they had announced. Hope springs eternal though...
Oh, great. Shiny shiny. But where is the new technology that will eliminate the need for blood sugar monitoring and insulin dependence altogether?
Insulin is not a cure for diabetes, but it creates one hell of a revenue stream: lancets, glucometers, test strips, alcohol wipes, syringes, insulin, insulin pumps, infusion kits, and now on top of all of this I CAN GLOW! A person with low blood sugar is likely to get all slow in the head and distracted by the fact that some part of their body is glowing, and pass out before they have a chance to find a candy.
Diabetics prick their fingers frequently during the day (often before and a little while after meals) to make sure they're not rising or falling too quickly. A glowing device that only shows if you're "too high" or "too low" isn't as helpful as this article makes it out to be.
normal blood sugar's around 100, if my "too high" marker is glowing, how do know if I'm at 200 or 500+? there's a big difference in how much insulin I need.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a "Wow that's cool" invention rather than an invention that can really be useful. I am a type I diabetic that injects 1 unit of insulin to see a reduction of 70 mg/dL. Being that the range of blood sugar levels seen in a normal human is between 60 and 110 mg/dl, unless these sensors provided resolution accuracy should be at THE MOST within 30 or so mg/dl, whereas the margin of error of a normal "prick your finger" glucose meter nowadays is at the most around 15 mg/dL. If the resolution of these sensors is poorer than that, the result for a person, that like me, is very sensitive to insulin (thus, I see a change as large as 70 mg/dL) would be that I could end up in a low blood sugar condition VERY, VERY easily ....not a very comforting thought to want me to head into the direction of using an implant like this ....Being that insulin sensitivity depends, on amongst other factors (the smaller / less heavy you are, the larger, body weight the change in blood sugar levels a single unit of insulin will have), people that are on the "not large" size range might definitively end up avoiding something like this.
I would say this is an invention that will make diabetics look cool at raves "....Look, his ear's glow color is changing as the music progresses and he's been dancing for a longer while, hence his blood sugar's going down due to the physical exertion caused by dancing" but will not really be to useful in practical terms.
I wish I had your insulin sensitivity. I have type 1 and 2 diabetes and it takes 1U of insulin to drop by my blood sugar by 15 mg/dL. I do agree though that the scale/resolution of this device needs to be finely tuned. That video showed a scale of 100-1000 mg/dL. That would be useless for anyone. The best bloodless glucose monitoring idea I've heard so far is the sensor placed in a contact. But again, resolution is an issue
@Bkasm actually there are people who have "double diabetes". You might want to educate yourself on the subject before you pipe and confirm for us that you are ignorant on the subject of diabetes. I've been diabetic over 30 years, and have been on an insulin pump since 1996. I'm fairly conversant on the topic, so when I spot a comment as WRONG as yours, I can't help by respond. Do some googling... here is just ONE result: http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/type2/t2_dd.htm
@dave1812 It's actually becoming more common (used to not be seen much at all...but kids with Type 2 was never rarely seen either). Diabetes is a huge issue, and causes all sorts of other problems and decrease in lifespan if not monitored properly. Though, I agree that this is just "cool" and not revolutionary.
At present, whats more accurate to say is that most diabetics developed this problem from obesity and poor diet.
I wish that instead of constantly preserving the least common denominator, that effort would be put into encouraging the health and vitality of people as a species rather than adding hundred gizmos and drugs.
Develop a culture of fitness and proper eating, and try and weed out unhealthy genes from the gene pool the same as any responsible breeder would do for any species. You wouldn't breed dogs with severe genetic hip dysplasia or congenital heart anomalies, and yet no one is willing to tell couples with dozens of genetic health problems that they should consider adopting instead of having five kids. *rolleyes*
@Ducman69 MOST people that have diabetes do have Type 2, which is caused by poor diet and lack of exercise.
There is this thing called Type 1 diabetes, which is caused by genes and usually develops in children. I have had type 1 since I was six years old due to no fault of mines. You're saying that just because my family has a history of developing type 1 diabetes, I or anyone else in my family should never have kids?
@Ducman69 Perhaps you'll feel different one day if your child develops a disease that would kill him in short order if not strictly monitored on a daily basis.
My 8 year old is type 1 diabetic and is other wise perfectly healthy. We have no family history of diabetes and his diagnosis hit us like a ton of bricks. He is not (and has never been) obese or had poor dietary skills. One day, his body simply attacked his pancreas and left him sick for life.
This article seems a little weird, but I am certainly grateful for the money spent on diabetes research. I would love to be able to check my son's blood sugar at 2 am without having to stick him with a needle. You have no idea how amazing that would be.
Perhaps we should weed the gene pool of morons too ... at least that you would would never have to worry about your children getting sick.
@Kyosho Of course if you have diabetes, genetic or environmental, you need treatment. Period.
The vast majority are environmental though (lack of exercise/diet/etc), and efforts/money should be emphasized on PREVENTION in the first place. Even the less common genetic problems can be greatly minimized over time as well. Considering the overpopulation problem the world is facing today, yes, I would say that if you have known genetic issues that it would be more responsible to adopt one of the millions of orphans rather than continue to perpetuate bad genes. An adopted child is still every bit as much yours, and it helps reduce our unsustainable growth, which is the main cause for most pollution, over-cultivation, starvation, wars sparked by competition over limited resources, and loss of habitat and wildlife diversity today.
In nature, such genetic issues would be rather cruelly dealt with. This is obviously unacceptable in any civilized society, but that does mean that if we don't voluntarily make sacrifices, that future generations will just get weaker and weaker. We know this for a fact with every other species, but deny the problem in ourselves.
@Ducman69 At risk of invoking Godwin's Law, you sound rather genocidal. Human intelligence has come about by evolutionary means too. If we are going to completely discount human ingenuity when we decide who lives and who dies, then we should throw ourselves to the wolves.
If we can successfully treat these genetic disease, then it doesn't hurt our gene pool at all (we don't even have to "cure" them if the people can live a normal life). Especially with type 1, many people live normal lives with normal lifespans. Type 2 is generally "self damage," but if that damage is turned around, even they can live normal lives. Many wait until it's too late, or will not believe they need to "turn around" until it's too late, but that's hardly genetic. There is some argument, because everything is genetics in the end, but it's accepted that type 2 diabetes is mostly nurture, not nature.
In nature, animals with diabetes would die. But mammals in nature will do whatever possible (within their means) to make sure even weak progeny survive. Sometimes they cannot do anything. I think if an ape could understand giving their baby insulin for it to live, they would. The do great things and put themselves at risk many times for weak offspring. They just don't have our knowledge of science.
A very typical response to create a strawman extremist, rather than deal with what is actually said.
Couples with known genetic issues adopting rather than having lots of kids relying on a lifetime of injections, inhalers, antibiotics, and other "successful" treatments is not tantamount to genocide. Encouraging a culture of healthy living with emphasis on nutrition and exercise to avoid the most common type of diabetes, just as one example, is not a stepping stone to the holocaust.
Again, if you have diabetes, genetic or environmental, you need treatment. Period. But the whole point is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
My father in law has an implanted monitoring system for his diabetes. A little device vibrates when it gets too high or too low. Much better for a quicker response or heading off the crash before it happens.
I thought there was a glucose sensitive contact lens. The meter was placed close to the eye and was able to read glucose readings off the lens. I was also told of a glucometer in development that shined light through your finger, much like a pulse oximeter.
There have been devices over the years that promised continuous blood glucose monitoring . However they all have suffered from a limited lifespan inside the body. That seems to be the challenge, and there is nothing in this invention that says they solved that problem. So, there is no news here.
Also, several have commented about Type II diabetes being caused by obesity. That is not the case. The cause has proven elusive. It is true that some Type II diabetes can reduce their need for insulin by loosing weight... but this doesn't work for all of them. Furthermore, some overweight people are NOT overeating. They may feel the judgment of people all the time, and it is wrong to do so.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted August 7th 2010 6:53AM
This... is SWEET!
@WhoIsCalvin
Sweet & Sour chicken.......umm?
@WhoIsCalvin
This is absolutely awesome. Long live technology evolution !
@WhoIsCalvin Only if it's glowing!
@WhoIsCalvin
You can prick your finger, or finger your prick... you choose, but diabetes is no laughing matter.
No more of that "Virtually Pain Free" crap
Diabetics rejoice!!!
@AlienSix And are mistakenly sent to area 51.
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget
I don't get it
@Rossgadget Because they're glowing blue...
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget
now I get it
@AlienSix
I have type 1 diabetes and I can't remember the last time I pricked my finger. Doctor's always tell you to check it because you won't know how much insulin to take, because you don't know what your blood sugar is. This is bullshit. Just look at the carbs on your food. That's how much you take.
now i can have a worrying amount of sugar and not worry about injections, with the inevitable diabetic state...
@rfpl
Cakes? What a hilariously inappropriate spamvertisment, given the article.
@Barguast diabetics can have cake, and eat it too, as long as we take the insulin to balance it out.
old, fat type 2 diabetics on the other hand.. should avoid the cake.
This looks like the beginning of a major breakthrough. If this "stuff" can me made long lived (> 1 year) and stable so as to give reliable and consistent results, then diabetics will have a major new tool at their disposal.
As the video said, it might even be possible to meter insulin (or whatever) into the bloodstrean without the patient even being involved in the process.
Imagine if this technology could be made generate tiny anounts of eelectricity in place of light. We could have a blood sugar powered source inside us. That could be used for many things from powering pacemakers to surgically implanted bluetooth headsets.
Shouldn't they be curing cancer or something?
@samiles
Those of us who suffer from Diabetes and its connected issues like that we're getting some breakthroughs as well, thank you very much.
@Silroc Sorry, I don't think I understand the article. Have then taken a step toward curing diabetes or have they just found a more convenient way to do something?
@samiles
Blood sugar monitoring is more than convenience - it's a necessity for us to live and current finger pricking is not as accurate as we need. My doctors were shocked that my daily bloodsugar tests and a1c didn't come close to saying the same thing.
Really, your comment was insensitive and shameful.
@Duke Sorry, I just don't really get it. As many of the other commenters (who have diabetes) are saying, it just seems like a pointless way to make money and doesn't really do anything. Which is what I thought when I first saw it.
@samiles
personally This is a very welcome advancement if they can get this to the mainstream. I have a really hard time dealing with needles and many times when I have to do an insulin shot or finger prick it makes me very nauseous for a few hours or I black out. granted this is just a small example Im positive im not the only one who doesnt like needles.
and its ultimately small steps like this that lead to the cure for cancer,HIV, diabetes etc..they dont just magically stumble upon them.
What if people still want the little pricks? May be the most exciting part of their day.
@tjrchka i dont know about you but i dont like pricking my finger if you get amusement then I think you have a problem.
Why don't they offer a better solution like integrate these sensors into iphone or android devices. Take it step further by syncing information to your computer so you can see a history of you blood sugar levels. On top of that offer a complete solution by adding a device that can monitor and inject insulin when needed according to these readings.
@VicRod74
AMEN.
I just got diagnosed a week ago with type II... I wish there were a good app, and a dock-connector attachment for my iPhone 4, that reads test strips, and puts it directly into the log. They Bayer USB Glucometer is close, but I don't carry a computer with me, I carry an iPhone.
But an implantable sensor would not be bad... maybe someday a micro-sensor device could return current, accurate readings at any time, and trend information since the last upload, via RFID.
I wish TSH levels were as quick and easy...
Why does the government want to track diabetics?
Anyone who is diabetic should check out Grove Instruments. www.groveinstruments.com They are working on a bloodless glucose monitor that performs very well. I have seen the device work and it is pretty amazing. It takes a long time to go through clinical trails, etc though.
@gittenlucky
We've been dealing with my son's diabetes for almost a year now. It seems that every time something new is announced, it is always 10 years from market. I understand the reasons, but wow is that frustrating. That said, this technology doesn't really impress me that much. They have a chemical that reacts to blood sugar levels. I prefer the approach that SmartCells is taking with smart insulin. Releasing insulin as the blood sugar goes up. Of course, they haven't moved anything forward with trials this year like they had announced. Hope springs eternal though...
It does take a lot of Japanese words to say the same sentence in English. ^^ It sounds really cool however, and the writing is beautiful.
I hope they can develop this faster than 5-10 years. This would save so many lives of people being cursed with diabetes.
A particularly important point is what the researcher mention: The ability to control blood sugar while sleeping or exercising.
But you'll also be able to use the spamvertiser's flower service to send flowers to the cake eater's hospital bed. He's thought this through well!
I really don't think they should be testing something like this on a rat.
Oh, great. Shiny shiny. But where is the new technology that will eliminate the need for blood sugar monitoring and insulin dependence altogether?
Insulin is not a cure for diabetes, but it creates one hell of a revenue stream: lancets, glucometers, test strips, alcohol wipes, syringes, insulin, insulin pumps, infusion kits, and now on top of all of this I CAN GLOW! A person with low blood sugar is likely to get all slow in the head and distracted by the fact that some part of their body is glowing, and pass out before they have a chance to find a candy.
how would this be any different from how these work:
http://bit.ly/brXuHV
Diabetics prick their fingers frequently during the day (often before and a little while after meals) to make sure they're not rising or falling too quickly. A glowing device that only shows if you're "too high" or "too low" isn't as helpful as this article makes it out to be.
normal blood sugar's around 100, if my "too high" marker is glowing, how do know if I'm at 200 or 500+? there's a big difference in how much insulin I need.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a "Wow that's cool" invention rather than an invention that can really be useful. I am a type I diabetic that injects 1 unit of insulin to see a reduction of 70 mg/dL. Being that the range of blood sugar levels seen in a normal human is between 60 and 110 mg/dl, unless these sensors provided resolution accuracy should be at THE MOST within 30 or so mg/dl, whereas the margin of error of a normal "prick your finger" glucose meter nowadays is at the most around 15 mg/dL. If the resolution of these sensors is poorer than that, the result for a person, that like me, is very sensitive to insulin (thus, I see a change as large as 70 mg/dL) would be that I could end up in a low blood sugar condition VERY, VERY easily ....not a very comforting thought to want me to head into the direction of using an implant like this ....Being that insulin sensitivity depends, on amongst other factors (the smaller / less heavy you are, the larger, body weight the change in blood sugar levels a single unit of insulin will have), people that are on the "not large" size range might definitively end up avoiding something like this.
I would say this is an invention that will make diabetics look cool at raves "....Look, his ear's glow color is changing as the music progresses and he's been dancing for a longer while, hence his blood sugar's going down due to the physical exertion caused by dancing" but will not really be to useful in practical terms.
@apgrovas
I wish I had your insulin sensitivity. I have type 1 and 2 diabetes and it takes 1U of insulin to drop by my blood sugar by 15 mg/dL. I do agree though that the scale/resolution of this device needs to be finely tuned. That video showed a scale of 100-1000 mg/dL. That would be useless for anyone. The best bloodless glucose monitoring idea I've heard so far is the sensor placed in a contact. But again, resolution is an issue
@livinglegend
You can't have Type 1 if you have Type 2, you also can't have Type 2 if you have Type 1. (Type 1 = insulin dependant, Type 2 = non-insulin dependent)
@Bkasm
actually there are people who have "double diabetes". You might want to educate yourself on the subject before you pipe and confirm for us that you are ignorant on the subject of diabetes. I've been diabetic over 30 years, and have been on an insulin pump since 1996. I'm fairly conversant on the topic, so when I spot a comment as WRONG as yours, I can't help by respond. Do some googling... here is just ONE result: http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/type2/t2_dd.htm
@dave1812 It's actually becoming more common (used to not be seen much at all...but kids with Type 2 was never rarely seen either). Diabetes is a huge issue, and causes all sorts of other problems and decrease in lifespan if not monitored properly. Though, I agree that this is just "cool" and not revolutionary.
At present, whats more accurate to say is that most diabetics developed this problem from obesity and poor diet.
I wish that instead of constantly preserving the least common denominator, that effort would be put into encouraging the health and vitality of people as a species rather than adding hundred gizmos and drugs.
Develop a culture of fitness and proper eating, and try and weed out unhealthy genes from the gene pool the same as any responsible breeder would do for any species. You wouldn't breed dogs with severe genetic hip dysplasia or congenital heart anomalies, and yet no one is willing to tell couples with dozens of genetic health problems that they should consider adopting instead of having five kids. *rolleyes*
@Ducman69
MOST people that have diabetes do have Type 2, which is caused by poor diet and lack of exercise.
There is this thing called Type 1 diabetes, which is caused by genes and usually develops in children. I have had type 1 since I was six years old due to no fault of mines. You're saying that just because my family has a history of developing type 1 diabetes, I or anyone else in my family should never have kids?
@Ducman69
Perhaps you'll feel different one day if your child develops a disease that would kill him in short order if not strictly monitored on a daily basis.
My 8 year old is type 1 diabetic and is other wise perfectly healthy. We have no family history of diabetes and his diagnosis hit us like a ton of bricks. He is not (and has never been) obese or had poor dietary skills. One day, his body simply attacked his pancreas and left him sick for life.
This article seems a little weird, but I am certainly grateful for the money spent on diabetes research. I would love to be able to check my son's blood sugar at 2 am without having to stick him with a needle. You have no idea how amazing that would be.
Perhaps we should weed the gene pool of morons too ... at least that you would would never have to worry about your children getting sick.
He does have a point about diet though. You could do far more to reduce diabetes and cancer and heart disease and obesity by becoming vegan, etc.
@Kyosho Of course if you have diabetes, genetic or environmental, you need treatment. Period.
The vast majority are environmental though (lack of exercise/diet/etc), and efforts/money should be emphasized on PREVENTION in the first place. Even the less common genetic problems can be greatly minimized over time as well. Considering the overpopulation problem the world is facing today, yes, I would say that if you have known genetic issues that it would be more responsible to adopt one of the millions of orphans rather than continue to perpetuate bad genes. An adopted child is still every bit as much yours, and it helps reduce our unsustainable growth, which is the main cause for most pollution, over-cultivation, starvation, wars sparked by competition over limited resources, and loss of habitat and wildlife diversity today.
In nature, such genetic issues would be rather cruelly dealt with. This is obviously unacceptable in any civilized society, but that does mean that if we don't voluntarily make sacrifices, that future generations will just get weaker and weaker. We know this for a fact with every other species, but deny the problem in ourselves.
@Ducman69 At risk of invoking Godwin's Law, you sound rather genocidal. Human intelligence has come about by evolutionary means too. If we are going to completely discount human ingenuity when we decide who lives and who dies, then we should throw ourselves to the wolves.
If we can successfully treat these genetic disease, then it doesn't hurt our gene pool at all (we don't even have to "cure" them if the people can live a normal life). Especially with type 1, many people live normal lives with normal lifespans. Type 2 is generally "self damage," but if that damage is turned around, even they can live normal lives. Many wait until it's too late, or will not believe they need to "turn around" until it's too late, but that's hardly genetic. There is some argument, because everything is genetics in the end, but it's accepted that type 2 diabetes is mostly nurture, not nature.
In nature, animals with diabetes would die. But mammals in nature will do whatever possible (within their means) to make sure even weak progeny survive. Sometimes they cannot do anything. I think if an ape could understand giving their baby insulin for it to live, they would. The do great things and put themselves at risk many times for weak offspring. They just don't have our knowledge of science.
@AmandaGal
A very typical response to create a strawman extremist, rather than deal with what is actually said.
Couples with known genetic issues adopting rather than having lots of kids relying on a lifetime of injections, inhalers, antibiotics, and other "successful" treatments is not tantamount to genocide. Encouraging a culture of healthy living with emphasis on nutrition and exercise to avoid the most common type of diabetes, just as one example, is not a stepping stone to the holocaust.
Again, if you have diabetes, genetic or environmental, you need treatment. Period. But the whole point is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
This is nothing new at all, they didn't solve the problem and promised a heads up in 10 years. Not impressed
My father in law has an implanted monitoring system for his diabetes. A little device vibrates when it gets too high or too low. Much better for a quicker response or heading off the crash before it happens.
I thought there was a glucose sensitive contact lens. The meter was placed close to the eye and was able to read glucose readings off the lens. I was also told of a glucometer in development that shined light through your finger, much like a pulse oximeter.
There have been devices over the years that promised continuous blood glucose monitoring . However they all have suffered from a limited lifespan inside the body. That seems to be the challenge, and there is nothing in this invention that says they solved that problem. So, there is no news here.
Also, several have commented about Type II diabetes being caused by obesity. That is not the case. The cause has proven elusive. It is true that some Type II diabetes can reduce their need for insulin by loosing weight... but this doesn't work for all of them. Furthermore, some overweight people are NOT overeating. They may feel the judgment of people all the time, and it is wrong to do so.
@cadcoke5
As someone lifelong hypothyroid, and newly diabetic... thanks for mentioning that. :D