Reliability is key if we are to trust the readings. So far, the AW heart rate monitor hasn't proven to be reliable enough for me and that should be relatively simple.
Is there any possibility this will be in the AW4, or is it too early?
You’re wrong about that. I don’t know what your comparison is from. Mine is extremely accurate. When I was in the hospital, after getting a warning about high heart rate from my watch, which was correct, I found that mine matched the hospital’s equipment that I was connected to by plus or minus one point. This was for 4 days at first, then when I went back, for another week and a half.
while I can’t say what you’re doing, I’ve found that people who do complain to me about it are wearing their watches too loosely. Another thing which plagues certified medical equipment, as told to me by a doctor, is that occasionally, the measurement coincides with the rise, or fall, of the heartbeat, resulting in a momentary high, or low count, or apparent dropout of a reading.
I said RELIABLE, not ACCURATE. I've noticed mine does not reliably give me an accurate reading every time. Most of the time, it does. But I monitor my HR on my watch during my daily activity (workout). MOST OF THE TIME, it shows me readings that I would predict at that point in my activity based on historical readings. Other times, it shows my HR at rest levels during higher cardio activity. NOT ALWAYS, but sometimes. Sometimes, it shows my heart rate at a too high of a rate during activity (I take the same route every morning), and I watch it and can literally see the rate tank over a period of 15 seconds down to what is normal for that time in my workout. That's what I mean by reliable. Other times, the HR is blanked out completely for period of 30 seconds or so.
i keep my watch sensor surface clean and relatively tight (but not too tight) on my wrist.
I’ve never had that problem.
I’ve had something like this happen during steady-state cardio occasionally, where it takes a while before it starts reading normally and is about half what is expected. If I take it off and dry my wrist it seems to help. Dunno if that’s it or what.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
They may get fussy, but they have to follow the rules too. If you read the link, you would see that what the watch does now is not covered. There is no reason to believe this would be covered either, unless Apple wanted to submit it as a medical device.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
They may get fussy, but they have to follow the rules too. If you read the link, you would see that what the watch does now is not covered. There is no reason to believe this would be covered either, unless Apple wanted to submit it as a medical device.
Or if the FDA decides it is a medical device.
Just like you don't get to decide whether a substance is a "drug" or a "supplement".
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
I wouldnt go that far after all there is nothing new here. That is the spectrascope is a well known tool. Apple achievement would be in getting it to work over a wide array of subjects.
Now dont get me wrong here; as a diabetic such a watch would lead me to becoming an Apple watch customer. Im not really a big fan of watches but as the disease progresses such monitoring would be very useful. The doctors already would live to see testing 6 times a day and that is a little much with traditional methods.
Life changing if the product actually works and is reliable. There is a subset of type 1 unstable-diabetes patients who have become virtually insensitive to hipoglucemia.
Invasive measures are the only current way to detect glucose swings but during sleep, these patients might not detect it or detect it at very low levels. Either way, correctional measures, involve more pin pricks and costly reactive strips (even for those with continuous monitoring systems) and more often than not lead the patient to hiperglucemia with everything that entails over the long term.
The great thing about such a device is that worst case patients would benefit hugely but also stable-diabetes patients, type 2 patients and literally everybody else, diabetic or not, would have a far greater understanding of how their bodies are working and even if they had no personal interest, their doctors could find the accumulated information invaluable.
But first the device has to work. That has been difficult to resolve so far. Personally, as long as the device were correctly calibrated, I would gladly settle for less accuracy in the readings, as catching a trend would still help many patients catch things at a much earlier stage (even if the numbers themselves were off) and then use an invasive method to confirm the reading and take any necessary action.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
Apple HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES to work with the FDAon this.
If a 3rd party develops the (wrist wearable) sensors independently of Apple, what are the going to do? Try to start their own smart watch product? Sell to those with only a small market share? Or sell to all - including the leading smart watch vendor with majority of market share and most of the premium market? So then Apple has the sensors for AW and ability to move the most, sell at the highest ASPs to get the best sensors.
Apple is working on this holly grail for long. And failed several times. When they succeed then as somebody said will "sell a helluva lot of watches!" And it will be hard to copycat that. Also because ReseachKit and other software connected to it.
Failed? Gee, I didn't know Apple already released a glucose monitor to the public that didn't work properly, and thus failed.
Yes, failed as they wanted to have one several years ago already. But have not managed to make one that would pass their quality standard.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
They may get fussy, but they have to follow the rules too. If you read the link, you would see that what the watch does now is not covered. There is no reason to believe this would be covered either, unless Apple wanted to submit it as a medical device.
Or if the FDA decides it is a medical device.
Just like you don't get to decide whether a substance is a "drug" or a "supplement".
It’s always possible. But as I said, Apple has been talking to the FDA for several years. We know this because both Apple and the FDA have said so. It’s inconceivable that this sort of thing hasn’t been discussed. I imagine that they have talked about just what would count as a classified medical device, and what won’t. So if Apple want to have one, they will. And if they don’t want that, it won’t be. The FDA can’t simply decide that something is a classified medical device just because... It has to meet the situation the web site says it does. The FDA has to follow its own rules.
Apple is working on this holly grail for long. And failed several times. When they succeed then as somebody said will "sell a helluva lot of watches!" And it will be hard to copycat that. Also because ReseachKit and other software connected to it.
Failed? Gee, I didn't know Apple already released a glucose monitor to the public that didn't work properly, and thus failed.
Yes, failed as they wanted to have one several years ago already. But have not managed to make one that would pass their quality standard.
And you have all of this inside information? No doubt they’ve been working on this for some time, but attempts to generate a product aren’t failures as they move up the learning curve.
It is no secret. It was discussed at the time of first Watch model i guess. It was big Apple plan to have glucose monitor but it showed as not so easy to make one.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
They may get fussy, but they have to follow the rules too. If you read the link, you would see that what the watch does now is not covered. There is no reason to believe this would be covered either, unless Apple wanted to submit it as a medical device.
Or if the FDA decides it is a medical device.
Just like you don't get to decide whether a substance is a "drug" or a "supplement".
It’s always possible. But as I said, Apple has been talking to the FDA for several years. We know this because both Apple and the FDA have said so. It’s inconceivable that this sort of thing hasn’t been discussed. I imagine that they have talked about just what would count as a classified medical device, and what won’t. So if Apple want to have one, they will. And if they don’t want that, it won’t be. The FDA can’t simply decide that something is a classified medical device just because... It has to meet the situation the web site says it does. The FDA has to follow its own rules.
I agree. I never meant nor said that the FDA would be capricious about it. But it is still they who get to make the decision and their history has been to err on the side of caution -- meaning on the medical side.
But, I think that is changing. And, as you point out, Apple may be instrumental in loosening up their viewpoint. In fact, Apple is pushing not just medical practice but research into a whole new level -- almost like when the Wright Brothers showed that man can leave the earth in powered flight.
The healthcare industry has, for the past 50-75 years been hyperfocused on pills and procedures to the point that I refer to it as the DiseaseCare industry. And, that industry has grown into a $3 trillion a year monster that's eating this country alive.
There is only one escape from that monster: Lifestyle medicine. If people don't get sick they don't need all those expensive pills and procedures. As the man said: "There's no money in dead people. And, there's no money in healthy people. The money is in those who are alive but sick".
It is said that 75% of our $3 trillion a year goes to treat chronic diseases.
It is also said 50-75% of those diseases could be eliminated with healthy lifestyles.
... And everything I have seen supports those two statistics.
Apple is part of that revolution. The question is: Will the FDA try to hold them back sticking to old healthcare models? Or, will they loosen up their criteria and let them run?
Eventually, they will have no choice. They will have to. So, in that, I totally agree with you. But, we don't know how long that will take. Hopefully it is quick. But, much of the answer lies in sticking with the old ways, ideology and office politics.
Another area where Apple could open the gates is research: Much of lifestyle medical research relies on user reports based on user memory: "What did you eat yesterday?". And, even then most trials only take a single measurement and then see how long it takes for the person to die. It's a very crude way of measuring and healthcare professionals often reject the results because of that. But, with things like the Apple Watch, etc. Apple can measure those things as they happen throughout the trial giving much more accurate and plausible results.
So, like you, my money is on Apple. But I also realize they are fighting the inertia of the massive healthcare industry. So, to me it's more a question of when rather than if.
I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.
The medical device industry makes sure of that. They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.
this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.
a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
The FDA is pretty fussy about uses and claims. Even the word "healthy" gets their attention. They are the judge and the jury.
I'm not claiming that a glucose monitor could not be a non-regulated, consumer grade device. Rather, just that it isn't Apple's call.
They may get fussy, but they have to follow the rules too. If you read the link, you would see that what the watch does now is not covered. There is no reason to believe this would be covered either, unless Apple wanted to submit it as a medical device.
Or if the FDA decides it is a medical device.
Just like you don't get to decide whether a substance is a "drug" or a "supplement".
It’s always possible. But as I said, Apple has been talking to the FDA for several years. We know this because both Apple and the FDA have said so. It’s inconceivable that this sort of thing hasn’t been discussed. I imagine that they have talked about just what would count as a classified medical device, and what won’t. So if Apple want to have one, they will. And if they don’t want that, it won’t be. The FDA can’t simply decide that something is a classified medical device just because... It has to meet the situation the web site says it does. The FDA has to follow its own rules.
I agree. I never meant nor said that the FDA would be capricious about it. But it is still they who get to make the decision and their history has been to err on the side of caution -- meaning on the medical side.
But, I think that is changing. And, as you point out, Apple may be instrumental in loosening up their viewpoint. In fact, Apple is pushing not just medical practice but research into a whole new level -- almost like when the Wright Brothers showed that man can leave the earth in powered flight.
The healthcare industry has, for the past 50-75 years been hyperfocused on pills and procedures to the point that I refer to it as the DiseaseCare industry. And, that industry has grown into a $3 trillion a year monster that's eating this country alive.
There is only one escape from that monster: Lifestyle medicine. If people don't get sick they don't need all those expensive pills and procedures. As the man said: "There's no money in dead people. And, there's no money in healthy people. The money is in those who are alive but sick".
It is said that 75% of our $3 trillion a year goes to treat chronic diseases.
It is also said 50-75% of those diseases could be eliminated with healthy lifestyles.
... And everything I have seen supports those two statistics.
Apple is part of that revolution. The question is: Will the FDA try to hold them back sticking to old healthcare models? Or, will they loosen up their criteria and let them run?
Eventually, they will have no choice. They will have to. So, in that, I totally agree with you. But, we don't know how long that will take. Hopefully it is quick. But, much of the answer lies in sticking with the old ways, ideology and office politics.
Another area where Apple could open the gates is research: Much of lifestyle medical research relies on user reports based on user memory: "What did you eat yesterday?". And, even then most trials only take a single measurement and then see how long it takes for the person to die. It's a very crude way of measuring and healthcare professionals often reject the results because of that. But, with things like the Apple Watch, etc. Apple can measure those things as they happen throughout the trial giving much more accurate and plausible results.
So, like you, my money is on Apple. But I also realize they are fighting the inertia of the massive healthcare industry. So, to me it's more a question of when rather than if.
The FDA isn’t interested in holding anyone back. They have clear rules for classified medical devices. If what your device does fits within one of the three classifications, then it must be shown to meet the standards required. If it doesn’t fit within one of the classifications, then it doesn’t have to.
this is really pretty simple. The classifications are spelled out plainly.
the insurance companies are thrilled about the prospects of a device like this. I just received the breakdown of the expenses of my illness. It came to slightly over $150,000. The insurance company decided what it will pay for those services and meds. I paid the rest, after Medicare. I ended up paying $30. The insurance company, the other $56,000 it was willing to pay.
if I didn’t have my Watch. I could have ended up with an actual heart attack. If that happened, the result might have been some major surgery. If so, the costs would have doubled, or more. The insurance company would have paid that. They are all for devices that inform before major problems are incurred. Insurance companies are one of the biggest factors in the attempt to keep healthcare costs down, as well as keeping he population healthy. And they have a lot of power.
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
I wouldnt go that far after all there is nothing new here. That is the spectrascope is a well known tool. Apple achievement would be in getting it to work over a wide array of subjects.
Now dont get me wrong here; as a diabetic such a watch would lead me to becoming an Apple watch customer. Im not really a big fan of watches but as the disease progresses such monitoring would be very useful. The doctors already would live to see testing 6 times a day and that is a little much with traditional methods.
Several friends of mine with Type I have a little round plastic sensor that stays stuck on their upper arm for a week at a time and can be scanned at any time using a dedicated little reading device. It's invasive, but at least it removes the need to prick yourself every time you need to take a reading.
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
Best of all they don't want to be the only hardware provider, in fact not really interested in a self-branded watch at all. They are open-sourcing much of it and licensing the software.
BTW, Wareable.com is a great source for keeping up with the latest developments in smartwatches and similar tech. One of my go-to's.
Nonsense. That the ceo of a sensor manufacturer who doesn’t have the capability of doing this, saying that they “think” it’s impossible? There’s nothing about the laws of physics that makes this impossible. Apple’s patent states the problems, and they’re serious, but certainly not impossible. This is a technological problem, not a theoretical one.
I would never work for, nor respect a person that says something is impossible. Impossible is a lack of imagination, knowledge, and sweat.
One thing I do when mentor is tell them that the word, "Can't" is the worst 4 letter word you can use. If they choose not to do something, then the word is "Won't".
Having worn Continuous Glucose Monitors for 10 years, I look forward to implementation of these systems, along with battery bands for my Apple Watch, whether it is covered by insurance or not. As I use the Dexcom sensor now, having blood sugar on my Watch is convenient, and having it without having to wear the sensors would be amazing!
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
I wouldnt go that far after all there is nothing new here. That is the spectrascope is a well known tool. Apple achievement would be in getting it to work over a wide array of subjects.
Now dont get me wrong here; as a diabetic such a watch would lead me to becoming an Apple watch customer. Im not really a big fan of watches but as the disease progresses such monitoring would be very useful. The doctors already would live to see testing 6 times a day and that is a little much with traditional methods.
Several friends of mine with Type I have a little round plastic sensor that stays stuck on their upper arm for a week at a time and can be scanned at any time using a dedicated little reading device. It's invasive, but at least it removes the need to prick yourself every time you need to take a reading.
That's probably the Abbot solution. There are a few continuous monitoring systems on the market but they are all invasive and expensive to maintain if you have no subsidy options.
They can cut down radically on pin pricks but all 'strange' readings have to be verified by a pin prick/reactive strip anyway so many opt out because of the cost, which is a shame because if you have unstable type 1 diabetes, a CGM solution can be a great help.
A reliable non-invasive CGM system with alarms/notifications coupled with onboard AI (analysing food values, exercise etc) would represent a huge leap in quality of life for diabetics and for large swathes of the general public.
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
I wouldnt go that far after all there is nothing new here. That is the spectrascope is a well known tool. Apple achievement would be in getting it to work over a wide array of subjects.
Now dont get me wrong here; as a diabetic such a watch would lead me to becoming an Apple watch customer. Im not really a big fan of watches but as the disease progresses such monitoring would be very useful. The doctors already would live to see testing 6 times a day and that is a little much with traditional methods.
Several friends of mine with Type I have a little round plastic sensor that stays stuck on their upper arm for a week at a time and can be scanned at any time using a dedicated little reading device. It's invasive, but at least it removes the need to prick yourself every time you need to take a reading.
The problem with anything that enters the skin, particularly if it’s in place for a while, is infection. I had a PIC line in my ARM, going into a vein in my chest, for a month while I was home, from a blood infection incurred from the catheter that was put in. So, the infection from the catheter, and the possibly of infection from the PIC line into which I injected the antibiotic three times a day.
so once a week, a nurse came, changed the bandage around the line, and took blood.
this is a somewhat extreme example of why a non invasive test is the holy grail. No risk.
This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.
Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
Best of all they don't want to be the only hardware provider, in fact not really interested in a self-branded watch at all. They are open-sourcing much of it and licensing the software.
BTW, Wareable.com is a great source for keeping up with the latest developments in smartwatches and similar tech. One of my go-to's.
Nonsense. That the ceo of a sensor manufacturer who doesn’t have the capability of doing this, saying that they “think” it’s impossible? There’s nothing about the laws of physics that makes this impossible. Apple’s patent states the problems, and they’re serious, but certainly not impossible. This is a technological problem, not a theoretical one.
I would never work for, nor respect a person that says something is impossible. Impossible is a lack of imagination, knowledge, and sweat.
One thing I do when mentor is tell them that the word, "Can't" is the worst 4 letter word you can use. If they choose not to do something, then the word is "Won't".
Having worn Continuous Glucose Monitors for 10 years, I look forward to implementation of these systems, along with battery bands for my Apple Watch, whether it is covered by insurance or not. As I use the Dexcom sensor now, having blood sugar on my Watch is convenient, and having it without having to wear the sensors would be amazing!
As long as the laws of physics allow it, and it’s just a matter of engineering, it’s possible.
the idea that, eventually, hopefully, we’ll have heart rate, blood pressure and glucose monitoring on one non invasive device on our wrist that is also useful in a number of other ways, is amazing.
heartrate alone is already being used, in a study with Parkinson’s, apparently very usefully. It can, and is being studied for kidney function, liver health and a number of other heart problems. If just one sensor is good for at least these problems, imagine what the combination of the three can be used for!
Comments
Invasive measures are the only current way to detect glucose swings but during sleep, these patients might not detect it or detect it at very low levels. Either way, correctional measures, involve more pin pricks and costly reactive strips (even for those with continuous monitoring systems) and more often than not lead the patient to hiperglucemia with everything that entails over the long term.
The great thing about such a device is that worst case patients would benefit hugely but also stable-diabetes patients, type 2 patients and literally everybody else, diabetic or not, would have a far greater understanding of how their bodies are working and even if they had no personal interest, their doctors could find the accumulated information invaluable.
But first the device has to work. That has been difficult to resolve so far. Personally, as long as the device were correctly calibrated, I would gladly settle for less accuracy in the readings, as catching a trend would still help many patients catch things at a much earlier stage (even if the numbers themselves were off) and then use an invasive method to confirm the reading and take any necessary action.
this is really pretty simple. The classifications are spelled out plainly.
the insurance companies are thrilled about the prospects of a device like this. I just received the breakdown of the expenses of my illness. It came to slightly over $150,000. The insurance company decided what it will pay for those services and meds. I paid the rest, after Medicare. I ended up paying $30. The insurance company, the other $56,000 it was willing to pay.
if I didn’t have my Watch. I could have ended up with an actual heart attack. If that happened, the result might have been some major surgery. If so, the costs would have doubled, or more. The insurance company would have paid that. They are all for devices that inform before major problems are incurred. Insurance companies are one of the biggest factors in the attempt to keep healthcare costs down, as well as keeping he population healthy. And they have a lot of power.
One thing I do when mentor is tell them that the word, "Can't" is the worst 4 letter word you can use. If they choose not to do something, then the word is "Won't".
Having worn Continuous Glucose Monitors for 10 years, I look forward to implementation of these systems, along with battery bands for my Apple Watch, whether it is covered by insurance or not. As I use the Dexcom sensor now, having blood sugar on my Watch is convenient, and having it without having to wear the sensors would be amazing!
They can cut down radically on pin pricks but all 'strange' readings have to be verified by a pin prick/reactive strip anyway so many opt out because of the cost, which is a shame because if you have unstable type 1 diabetes, a CGM solution can be a great help.
A reliable non-invasive CGM system with alarms/notifications coupled with onboard AI (analysing food values, exercise etc) would represent a huge leap in quality of life for diabetics and for large swathes of the general public.
so once a week, a nurse came, changed the bandage around the line, and took blood.
this is a somewhat extreme example of why a non invasive test is the holy grail. No risk.
the idea that, eventually, hopefully, we’ll have heart rate, blood pressure and glucose monitoring on one non invasive device on our wrist that is also useful in a number of other ways, is amazing.
heartrate alone is already being used, in a study with Parkinson’s, apparently very usefully. It can, and is being studied for kidney function, liver health and a number of other heart problems. If just one sensor is good for at least these problems, imagine what the combination of the three can be used for!