Showing posts with label Artificial Pancreas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Artificial Pancreas. Show all posts

February 27, 2015

Finance Geeks are Talking Artificial Pancreas. James Cagney Wants a Cut.

Ok, I'm a business news kinda guy. My undergrad degree is finance; I was a banker (I apologize for what I did to the American Economy, it was clearly all my fault, I'm sorry.)

Interestingly this week a number of earnings calls (aka where businesses talk about their results to analysts each quarter) Artificial Pancreas was a topic:

Here's a few I just posted about:
Tandem
Podd
Dexcom
Home Grown & Startup

Then there is Medtronic's latest not-in-the-USA-yet launch.



What I find interesting as a finance geek is the shift in tone from a kinda distant, "Hey this is some research someplace,"  to wall street asking, "Yo. Where's da product? And how'z youz gonna get a cut?" (Yes - analyst are James Cagney in some shoot 'em up film)

In my twisted mind, this is a significant sign of progress.

Keep it coming.

AP will come incrementally. These all suggest incremental steps. Like diabetes care perfection shouldn't be the Public Enemy of the good. 

Dexcom and Artificial Pancreas

From: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2951636-dexcoms-dxcm-ceo-kevin-sayer-on-q4-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript
We met with several groups utilizing G4, CGM and developing closely* and partially close with our efficient pancreas type systems. 
And a significant progress has been made by many of these groups, but the pathway to commercialization for many of these projects remains unclear and we will continually evaluate our own path to the artificial pancreas closely. 
With the world’s most accurate and reliable CGM system we intend to play in this arena. We left the meeting very confident that with execution of our plant, product portfolio we will remain the world’s leader in continues glucose monitoring 
With our new insertion system, the G6 and other advanced sensor platforms, expanding connectivity with user-friendly apps and the ability to perform advanced analytics, one CGM and other diabetes data is in the cloud we believe we are position to lead this industry for a very, very long time.

OmniPod's & Artificial Pancreas

OmniPod's CEO spoke of artificial pancreas in Q&A at the most recent earnings call:
Patrick Sullivan - President & CEO
Yes, I would say our strategy is that as it relates to the artificial pancreas, we are putting together strategy so that OmniPod is a very significant part of the artificial pancreas product offering in the future. And with that you need to have a CGM product offering, as well as an offering to put the three units together if you will, and as you know we have been working internally on our own CGM development which continues but also we have an agreement with - already have an agreement with Dexcom to use their CGM sensor along with our new PDM to integrate that those two products together, and I think with that combination used in algorithm and we're looking at opportunities to have an algorithm that we could then provide the full package. I'd also say that we would evaluate and look at opportunities with Abbott and others that would have potential CGM integration opportunities for us. So in the short term we're looking at other people that have CGM capabilities and algorithm capability, but at the same time we are continuing at a low level our own efforts in our own CGM product development.

February 18, 2015

Artificial Pancreas News: DIYP, Bigfoot and Medtronic

#WeAreNotWaiting has become very well know in the diabetes data space. As I read about it, the next steps are slowly starting to come tantalizingly into view. Some even have hastags and Facebook pages. Others come from the usual suspects.


#DIYPS

Do It Yourself Pancreas System the fascinating collaboration of Dana Lewis & Scott Leibrand. A lovely couple if there ever was one. Their story is outlined at Median.com (1).  What is clear is their DIYPS is doable. Some folks wonder why hack your diabetes? Dana's 2¢ is, "I have to make about 300 decisions per day on average. It’s really fatiguing." Brilliantly understated Dana.

Having had the great pleasure of talking with them over the past year, doable was never in doubt.  It was more about about when. So my big question after reading the Median piece was simply, are they moving up the wedding date? Read it and see why.

Another piece that makes the connections from Nightscout to AP in Wired. (2) It goes from Nightscout to #DIYPS and then on to tease about Bigfoot.


There is a Bigfoot?

Bigfootbiomedical (3) is on Facebook where former JDRF leader Jeffrey Brewer is listed as CEO.  Some other very interesting folks, who are less public about it, are said to be working there as well. I trust they will confirm those rumors in their own good time. In the meanwhile Jeffery is playing a fun game of cat and mouse with Bigfoot on his Facebook timeline today.



Medtronic

It isn't only the home brew and startup crowd that are making strides. Medtronic has launched a next step with the MiniMed 640G (4). This new device shuts off insulin predictively. While that is an incremental step, it is a step. OK step / stride? You say potato..., it is somewhere in there. What is significant to me is progress. Medtronic will be sharing more about their next step their Hybrid Closed Loop system soon (do two steps make a stride?) It will be presented at the upcoming Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 8th Annual Meeting being held at CNIT Paris La Defense from February 18-21, 2015 (5) At the last #MedtronicDAF, they said they were going to speed up bringing things to market. Seems they are. 

YDMV

All these are great news IMHO. Before somebody starts complaining about FDA, lets remember FDA approved the Medtronic 530G under their Artificial Pancreas guidance. Lots of folks complained that it wasn't an AP. OK you AP may vary - but FDA approved it as AP and that tells me they are looking to do just that. Well, OK. Also FDA flat to say they are looking to approve innovations under AP guidance. It may be a tad short of them saying, "Bring it on!" - So maybe the 530G is, as the saying goes, proof in the pudding.

To me this all matters because of Eggs and Baskets (6) in which I wrote:
I believe that better is better and perfect should not be the enemy of good. 
So I am all for advances in type 1 diabetes care that may fit into individual's life styles in a Your Diabetes May Vary kind of way. AP may work for some while GRI works better for others. I am fairly sure none of it will make diabetes care easy but it may be less hard and that's better.  
I support a diversified approach to making life better. There is a fable about putting eggs in more than one basket that explains modern portfolio theory better than most finance professors. 

YDMV, so should your AP options.



In case the links break:
(1) https://medium.com/access-matters/do-it-yourself-diabetes-bd1ea1adf034
(2) http://www.wired.com/2014/12/diabetes-patients-hacking-together-diy-bionic-pancreases/
(3) https://www.facebook.com/bigfootbiomed
(4) https://www.medtronic-diabetes.com.au/insulin-pumps/640g
(5) http://newsroom.medtronic.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251324&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2017567
(6) http://www.ydmv.net/2011/10/artificial-pancreas-and-egg-baskets.html

September 27, 2013

Medtronic LGS Approved!

Just saw a press release that Medtronic has FDA clearance for the 530G Low Glucose Suspend (LGS) system. This is good news. It is the first step on the path to AP.



LGS uses a sensor to stop delivering insulin when the system detects a low. That seem only logical.

Regular YDM readers may have seen these posts on LGS

Approval is good news. It shows FDA has figured out how to allow an innovative step to better diabetes management. Before people start quibbling about sensors sensitivity and perfection, let's remember that diabetes perfection is not possible. Better is.

This is a significant step to better.

Your Diabetes May Vary


January 30, 2013

The Big Story on Action News

... well at least for us the Big Story on Action News is US! 

Delaney and I were interviewed for this story on AP last summer. (Sorry I couldn't get the embed code to work.)


I almost wish we were not part of the story because it feels self serving to like this so much. It isn't that they talk about AP it is that in doing so they talk about the emotional part of diabetes. Right there in the toss to the heath reporter,  "even for the most disciplined patient diabetes can take physical and emotional toll."

Yay baby! That getting into the news is enough. The rest is just gravy and they did the rest justice too.

So often we in the diabetes community get our collective undies in a bunch over some poorly reported story. Maybe we should rethink that. Maybe we chould go out of our way to connect with the good journalists, who "get it" and pass on an 'attaboy.

Thanks to the Action News Team for getting it right!

Think about it, what motivates you more, recognition for getting doing well or getting smacked in the nose with a rolled up newspaper?

So how about it diabetes community? 

Here is a link the health desk at Philly Action News: HealthCheck or send them a Tweet at https://twitter.com/6abc

August 30, 2012

The FDA Comment that Got Away... or Maybe Not

I like to see the DOC represented on FDA dockets that impact living with diabetes with comments. I think living with and self managing diabetes gives  patients insights into care that only patients know. So when a FDA docket get by me without my seeing it I am disappointed at the lost opportunity. One such lost opportunity was the Draft Guidance on Mobile Medical Applications. The docket was open this time last year.

I had a very pleasant chat with one of the FDA media specialist and she said that, yes the docket is closed but comments can still be made. Obviously comments will not have the same value to a close docket. So this is what I will send, late. Very late.

Consideration of the Regulation of Mobile Apps and Diabetes Care

The FDA has proposed guidance for the regulation of mobile medical apps. The draft is significant to people living with diabetes, in no small part this is because the FDA makes numerous specific references in the draft to diabetes care. Clearly then the agency sees diabetes as an area where mobile medical applications bring vale. The FDA Draft specifically speaks to diabetes care and blood glucose testing with strips, the analysis of information and an app controlling an insulin pump. 

Areas of the FDA draft where I think there may be a concern for people with insulin dependent diabetes.
  • The draft does not create a regulatory path for applications that process information from all the different devices people with diabetes use daily.
  • The draft reaches beyond mobile by suggesting regulation cloud based applications, if they are viewable on mobile devices. 
  • The draft is not clear about the distinctions between logging and analyzing data, particularly from the perspective of diabetes logging. 
  • Good apps are needed to improve quality of live. Failure to regulate in a timely fashion is a public health risk.

Multiple Devices
Effective care for people living with diabetes, particularly type 1 diabetes (YT1D), balances a variety of diverse things. Blood sugar is influenced by food, insulin and activity. Beyond the absolute level of blood sugar a trend, up or down, and the rate of that change also has an impact on diabetes management decisions. Different devices help people assess each of these different aspects of living with diabetes. The vast majority of the time T1D patients take self management actions independently based on data from multiple devices based on the training they have received from their health professionals. 

The draft says, “The FDA plans to address in a separate issuance mobile medical app intended to analyze, process, or interpret medical device data (electronically collected or manually entered) from more than one medical device.” This is particularly significant for the diabetes community. As mentioned above people with diabetes use multiple devices routinely throughout everyday to analyze how to manage diabetes. We use blood glucose meters, continuous glucose sensors (CGM), insulin pumps and carbohydrate food indexes. So while this draft makes specific examples of individual diabetes care apps, the integration of information from the multiple devices mentioned in the draft into one app is specifically excluded from the guidance. 

I see the next significant increase in the improvement in the quality of life for people living with diabetes coming from this integration of diabetes data with mobile devices. I see an increased amount of time in target rages and decreases variability in blood glucose through the integration of diabetes data from multiple devices. The fact is each device is used for only a part of the balancing act that is life with type 1 diabetes. Patients continually juggle blood sugar levels, the direction of change in blood sugar, insulin carbs and activity. An effective diabetes management app will consider the same multiple sources of information that people balance now. This draft specifically precludes applications that interpret data from more than one device. That exclusion maintains a status quo of regulatory uncertainty in the development and commercialization of tools for better diabetes self management.  

Artificial pancreas projects are being developed at a number of research facilities and health care firms. They will rely on data from CGM to control insulin pumps. The advanced logic of these devices may well be processed in mobile devices. These systems are in development and their commercialization will depend on the Agency being prepared to consider them as apps that interact with multiple devices. Yes the Agency is developing AP guidance. 

Low Glucose Suspend, a stepping stone to artificial pancreas, is available in virtually every market but the Untied States. However industry could not bring it froward for regulatory consideration in the USA because the FDA was slow to develop LGS guidance to evaluate it. The Agency should avoid following that unfortunate precedent, specifically where a lack of multiple device mobile medical app guidance inhibits AP.

Cloud
Cloud based diabetes software offers great potential for housing and considering data collected from multiple diabetes devices. The draft attempts to define what constitutes a regulated mobile medical application. In doing so they include applications that, “can be executed (run) on a mobile platform, or a web-based platform, or a web-based application that is tailored to a mobile platform but is executed on a server.”

This seems to allow regulation of cloud based computing platforms as mobile devices because the user has mobile access to output from that cloud system. That seems to be an excessively broad inclusion of essentially all cloud based systems as mobile. However in another section of the draft the FDA notes that it was previously determined that, “it would be impractical to prepare an overreaching software policy to address all the issues related to the regulation of all medical devices containing software.” It seems that reasoning should be applied to the cloud as a software containing entity. The attempt to regulate cloud based software, that can be seen on a mobile device, is also impractical. 

Log
The draft makes the distinction that apps that log general health and wellness information not intended for treatment are not regulated. In diabetes there is not a distinction of logging general health and for treatment. Further the distinction between logging and analyzing logged information is not clear. Many people with diabetes log blood glucose information as there is no manipulation of the values, the same values are simply visually represented. The display of that information as a table or a graphic such as chart should viewed similarly as displaying log information. Charts are simply a means of viewing logged numbers. A chart is not an analysis. This is particularly true when the device that an app connects with, such as a blood glucose meter, may already provides charts of the logged data.

Some devices are coming to market that do preform rudimentary analysis. For example some blood glucose meters now identifying blood glucose trends. The display of that information to an app is simply a second screen.  As such that second screen should be viewed as an accessory to the original approved device and not an independent regulated device. 

Failure to Regulate
The proposed guidance states, “The FDA believes that this subset of mobile apps pose the same or similar potential risk to the public health as currently regulated devices if they fail to function as intended.” It is significant the Agency considers the risk of a lack of devices. The agency should expand on that  logic. Yes, there is a risk if devices are not available and that lack of a devices is a potential public health risk. 

The FDA should consider the risk of a lack of devices stemming from regulatory uncertainty as urgency to develop the regulatory frame work for devices that can improve the quality of life and even possibly save lives.

Therefore I see the lack of diabetes apps as a public health issue.  So too is the lack of guidance for integrating multiple devices in an app. Consider for example that the diabetes community has mourned numerous children and teens who have died in the recent years ‘dead in bed.” Most likely due to extended over night hypoglycemia. These deaths should be considered as the outcome of the Agency failing to act to bring tools like low glucose suspend into the regulatory structure here in the United states. In that context the Agency should consider the lack of guidance for apps that “analyze, process, or interpret medical device data (electronically collected or manually entered) from more than one medical device” a public health risk. 



Possible form letters form this. 
Warning My Spelling May Vary!


The Honorable (You Congressperson or Senator here)
(Their address)
Washington, DC Zip

Dear (You Congressperson or Senator here),

The FDA is currently in the process of finalizing guidance for industry on how they will regulate Mobile Medical Applications (see http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm263280.htm.) I (my child) live(s) with diabetes. 

Effective care for people living with diabetes, particularly type 1 diabetes (YT1D), balances a variety of diverse things. Blood sugar is influenced by food, insulin and activity. Beyond the absolute level of blood sugar a trend, up or down, and the rate of that change also has an impact on diabetes management decisions. Different devices help people assess each of these different aspects of living with diabetes. The vast majority of the time T1D patients take self management actions independently based on data from multiple devices based on the training they have received from their health professionals. 

The draft says, “The FDA plans to address in a separate issuance mobile medical app intended to analyze, process, or interpret medical device data (electronically collected or manually entered) from more than one medical device.” This is particularly significant for the diabetes community. As mentioned above people with diabetes use multiple devices routinely throughout everyday to analyze how to manage diabetes. We use blood glucose meters, continuous glucose sensors (CGM), insulin pumps and carbohydrate food indexes. So while this draft makes specific examples of individual diabetes care apps, the integration of information from the multiple devices mentioned in the draft into one app is specifically excluded from the guidance. 

I see the next significant increase in the improvement in the quality of life for people living with diabetes coming from this integration of diabetes data with mobile devices. I see an increased amount of time in target rages and decreases variability in blood glucose through the integration of diabetes data from multiple devices. The fact is each device is used for only a part of the balancing act that is life with type 1 diabetes. Patients continually juggle blood sugar levels, the direction of change in blood sugar, insulin carbs and activity. An effective diabetes management app will consider the same multiple sources of information that people balance now. This draft specifically precludes applications that interpret data from more than one device. That exclusion maintains a status quo of regulatory uncertainty in the development and commercialization of tools for better diabetes self management.  

Please connect the FDA and urge them to develop guidance for mobile medical applications that integration and manage the multiple devices diabetes patients use to self manage the condition. 


The Honorable (You Congressperson or Senator here)
(Their address)
Washington, DC Zip

Dear (You Congressperson or Senator here),

The FDA is currently in the process of finalizing guidance for industry on how they will regulate Mobile Medical Applications (see http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm263280.htm.) I (my child) live(s) with diabetes. 

Cloud based diabetes software offers great potential for housing and considering data collected from multiple diabetes devices. The draft attempts to define what constitutes a regulated mobile medical application. In doing so they include applications that, “can be executed (run) on a mobile platform, or a web-based platform, or a web-based application that is tailored to a mobile platform but is executed on a server.”

This seems to allow regulation of cloud based computing platforms as mobile devices because the user has mobile access to output from that cloud system. That seems to be an excessively broad inclusion of essentially all cloud based systems as mobile. However in another section of the draft the FDA notes that it was previously determined that, “it would be impractical to prepare an overreaching software policy to address all the issues related to the regulation of all medical devices containing software.” It seems that reasoning should be applied to the cloud as a software containing entity. The attempt to regulate cloud based software, that can be seen on a mobile device, is also impractical. 

I support practical regulation of medical devices. I worry that impractical regulation may delay life saving advances. I particularly a concerned that innovation created by American firms are delayed from entering the market here due to impractical regulatory rules. The diabetes community has seen such delay. Please contact the FDA and express my appreciation for practical regulation of mobile medical applications but not what the Agency itself has called overreaching. 

June 8, 2012

LGS in USA?


Medtronic announced today that their Low Glucose Suspend pump is into the FDA for a PMA aka blessing. Good news and a step towards innovation in insulin pump care. 

FDA to Review World’s First Insulin Pump with Threshold Suspend – Another Significant Step Toward the Artificial PancreasMINNEAPOLIS – June 8, 2012 –In the next step toward the development of an artificial pancreas, Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE:MDT) today announced that it has filed the final module of its Pre-Market Approval (PMA) application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the MiniMed® 530G system featuring Threshold Suspend Automation. If approved by the FDA, the MiniMed® 530G system will be the only integrated insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor in the United States that automatically suspends insulin delivery if the sensor glucose value is equal to or below the low threshold value.


Read more about it here:

April 5, 2012

Art and Science on the Walls of LA

My impression of MedtronicDAF and the Getty Museum.


I saw some amazing things on the walls in Los Angeles. A 1667 painting that we were convince was an endo visit but may have been an EPT and guys with leather chaps and Harley gear visiting the Flemish gallery at the Getty.


Of it all, I liked the impressionists best.




Manet’s “The Rue Mosnier with Flags” was stunning. Painted in 1878 it strikes me as a relevant critique of public displays of nationalism while the veteran with crutches shows who may bear the costs.



I found Monet’s painting of light somehow, more real than actual light. Yet it was Desborough’s Depictions on the Principles I found most hopeful. His series of single page works are fine art.

Desborough?

Lane Desborough is part of the artificial pancreas research team at Medtronic. On one wall the team has posters detailing the principles that guide their work. They all signed the posters committing to the principles. Hanging on the opposite wall are brief, one page papers, illuminating their progress to waypoints on the journey the principles inform.

Note: We were asked not to photograph the documents as some 
content is proprietary. This image was provided by Lane.

I tried to read a few of the one page abstracts. Like the works of other impressionist masters, when you look closely what seems a clear picture of an event, place or light on water is something else entirely. Something possibly outside your expectations and possibly beyond your ability to comprehend. Step back and an image appears clear again.

Lane's team are serious scientists including PhDs from domains other than diabetes, like aerospace and industrial chemical refining. One had been in defense contracting. Their art is to understand and transfer variability from one place to another where it is tweaked and adjusted. For example aerospace understands autopilots. A plane can be moved deliberately through three dimensions, safely, with input from gyroscopes and navigational instruments. Chemical plants routinely crank out refined products and we think nothing of the catalysts and complexity involved. The team's work is to defend future patients from some of diabetes variations.

It is fine art. Engineering art. This team is bringing their experience to make an autopilot to refine blood sugar. They are guided by principles, post abstracts on the walls and when you step back an look at their art you can see that maybe there is an image of the future in their art. An image of a better future.



Lane sent me a video of a trebuchet he and his son build with Legos. That too is fine art and better father, son and dog interaction that managing a boy’s insulin. Being dad, like science is an art.  That art matters most, or at least that was my impression of what I saw on the walls in LA.



Notes: 
In a future post I will share more about the guiding principles with lanes consent but for me the reality is in the impression.

Also, Lane was clear that part of his process is to consciously work past the not invented her syndrome and proudly borrow from other domains. With that in mind please see my disclosure about MedtronicDAF proudly borrowing from a friend.

February 29, 2012

We Hold TheseTruths to be Self-Evident, Except Trials are Required.

Medtronic has a press release out today that says with Low Glucose Suspend (LGS) folks spend less time in hypos. That seems kind of intuitive to me but hey the studies need to be done. It it wasn't a small difference IHMO. 19% less time in hypos.



You can read the press release here or click this graphic to see what is said in markets that aren't the USA and where people with diabetes can get a LGS pump.



YDMV has burned a fair number of electrons on and around LGS. Here is hoping this helps the FDA focus on the value this step brings living safe lives with insulin infusion.

What do yo think?
Would you like LGS?
Would you use it?

.

October 19, 2011

Artificial Pancreas and Egg Baskets


A friends asked this about the artificial pancreas (AP):

I have noticed over the past few days a lot of interest in the Artificial Pancreas project, the FDA and an online petition.  
I know nothing of the project beyond the controversy it caused when the JDRF supported it and people felt that money was better spent on a cure rather than technology.  
From what I have seen, and again, I need to do a lot more research, this will be a tool-a more advanced pump if you will.  If this is correct, are we looking at a tool that will only be available to those that can afford it or will it be looked upon as similar to a pacemaker for a heart patient?  
In Canada, we are still fighting to have insulin pumps covered in all provinces for all ages.  Very few have coverage for CGM.  How will the masses therefore afford to have access to another device...unless this is something for the masses again like an artificial limb or pacemaker. 
Please feel free to email me direct if you can help me to better understand this rather than clog up the list.   I don't mind standing behind something if I feel it will make a real difference.  At the moment, I am just not sure I understand the planned way forward with this. 

This was my response: 

There are a number of approaches to AP. Some use just insulin others, I think a study at Boston University uses something to raise BG as well as provide insulin. If you get the chance, go to a JDRF technology meeting. The Capital Chapter ran a great one last year. You will see AP is part, but by no means all of the story of making living with diabetes better.

You are correct about the tools involved - CGM and pumps. There is wide appreciation that improvement is needed in both sensing and insulin delivery. Faster insulins and better pumps sets. The benefits of those would also improve care outside of AP. Faster insulin would be good for everyone, better sets and sensors would benefit those who use pumps and CGM without AP. 

AP then is an set of algorithms, or an application if you will, that manages BG with the pump as measured buy the sensor. It certainly will be costly to develop and more so to get approved, particularly as there are currently not guidelines to get it approved. (in part this relates to the recent conversations about Low Glucose Suspend (LGS) and apps.) In fact LGS is a stepping stone to AP in that it does one AP function, stopping additional insulin with low BG. 

You are correct in noting AP is concerning to some. It is worth noting that JDRF's investment in AP is small compared to to their other research initiatives. I don't have the current numbers percentage numbers. 

I think you are legitimately concerned about costs and reimbursement. My good friend Scott Strummello often expresses the same concern. I think that AP will need to demonstrate effectiveness before insurance will cover it. To do that it will need to be approved by the FDA and tested, to be approved it
needs to be invented and go through trials. That is a lot of steps. 

Glucose responsive insulin (GRI) would make AP mute. I think GRI may be even more distant down the same path of discovery and approval as AP. Still one could argue that GRI is a better solution than AP and that it should be the focus. Others can rightly point out neither is a cure or a sure bet. 

I believe that better is better and perfect should not be the enemy of good.
So I am all for advances in type 1 diabetes care that may fit into individual's life styles in a Your Diabetes May Vary kind of way. AP may work for some while GRI works better for others. I fairly sure none of it will make diabetes care easy but it may be less hard and that's better. 

I support a diversified approach to making life better. There is a fable about putting eggs in more than one basket that explains modern portfolio theory better than most finance professors. Any one approach to making diabetes life better may fail. Most pharma development projects start with promise but don't make it to the market. So to make life better for people with diabetes a lot of different approaches need to be tried. It is in that context that I think JDRF GRI x-prize like initiative is a good idea even after the support they have put into and the promise that is still expected from SmartCell's Smart Insulin that Merk bought. 

Let me know if this helped any. 

You can learn more at the JFDR AP website: http://www.artificialpancreasproject.com/

Share you support for the AP initiative at this online petition

Bennet 


August 6, 2011

Repeat After Me: Dear FDA...


The FDA is seeking comments on how to evaluate diabetes related innovations, specifically, Low Glucose Suspend. In the simplest language that is stoping an insulin pump from delivering insulin into a person that is hypo. This is a step towards and artificial pancreas. 

Here is my four point, overly short, version of what the FDA is seeking comments on:
  • The FDA is proposing guidelines to consider approving low glucose suspend.
  • Low glucose suspend can stoping delivery of insulin to people who have had too much already.
  • The FDA is considering a lot of things including the risk of raising A1C with such a system. 
  • The FDA are open to considering studies for people under age 18 but they are not there yet.
My feelings is the FDA is way behind the times. Systems designed and made in the USA are on sale around the world but not here. In part because the FDA doesn’t know how to approve it. 

We deserve better.
There are a lot of reasons why we all should comment. If you care about artificial pancreas you should comment. If you don’t care about artificial pancreas you should still comment.  
I think the most important reason for us all to comment is so that the FDA sees the diabetes community as a group that is capable of, and willing to, hold the FDA’s feet to the fire. The DOC should be the FDA's squeaky wheel. 
People living with diabetes needs are different than virtually all other medical conditions. This is due to the extremely high level of self-management we do daily. The FDA should come to expect the DOC to comment on diabetes issues from artificial pancreas, faster insulin, smarter insulin, encapsulation of islets, and my pet peeve device interoperability through data sharing. Our voices should be part of the regulatory process. By commenting on as many diabetes issues as the FDA opens dockets for we can exercise such a voice. 

The more - the better.
The issue at hand is low glucose suspend. Given the tragic cases of young lives lost to severe lows, providing tools that can help minimize and prevent such lows is important. 
I of beg you, please do three things
  1. Learn about the FDA’s proposal.
  2. Comment on it
  3. Send a copy of your comment to your Congressperson
The comment space is 2000 characters. Think of it as one big-ass tweet. 

I encourage you to share what you write the FDA with the DOC - let others to use it as a template or help for their own comments. I welcome anyone willing to post what they write to the FDA as a link or comment here for others to use as inspiration and or a cheat sheet. 

Please also copy your comment into a email to your elected officials in DC. (I did mention squeaky and the more the better right?)
The following are a few sample comments that I offer up to be copied, edited and abused as form letters. Each are well under the 2000 character limit giving you room to expand, personalize and otherwise riff on the theme.
A Comment on Live Lost to Hypos:
I am a parent of a child with type 1 Diabetes.  Type 1 is extensively managed in the home by families. Yes we have a medical team of physicians, nurses, educators and more but day to day actions and decisions are made in the home by parents and teens living with diabetes.
Diabetes is difficult and stressful to manage. Diabetes varies based on a vide variety of things. The biggest risk we face and the biggest fear we have as parents is a severe hypo that results from the variety of things that impact diabetes. 
This is particularly stressful at night. As you consider low glucose suspend and it non inferiority based on A1C please keep in mind that a number of young people in the type 1 diabetes community have passed away due to over night hypos recently. Being alive with a A1C that increase due to low glucose suspend would be vastly superior than another fatality from a sever night time low. 
A Comment on Pediatric Approval and A1C Varibility:
Our family lives with type 1 diabetes. Day to day we are the primary managers of this chronic condition guided by our doctor and nurse educator. 
As the FDA considers low glucose suspend I urge you to fast track the pediatric approval of such a  device. Younger, smaller people are more sensitive to insulin as either basal or bolus injections. As such they tend to vary more than older people. Also kids face hormonal issues with growing that significantly impact and change insulin needs. Significant dose needs can change as rapidly as a few weeks. 
With the higher insulin sensitivity and more variable insulin needs due to growth, children are likely to see a wide variability in blood sugar numbers expressed as A1C. This proposal suggest non inferiority based on glycemic control as quantified by A1C. As you evaluate pediatric use please consider that kids’ glycemic control is a wider range of variability that adults. 
This higher variability means kids may see more and more severe hypos than adults. As  a result they are more at risk and are more in need of low glucose suspend. 
Please move to establish guidance for pediatric approval of low glucose suspend that recognized both the more pressing need to keep children safe and the higher variability in their glucose control. 

A Comment on FDA Proactivity:
As you consider guidelines for low glucose suspend, I urge the FDA to move from being behind the ball to being proactive. Low glucose suspend is already approved and available for patients across the world. It has been coming for some time yet the FDA seems to have been unprepared for it.
The FDA should consider developing guidelines for the more advance possibilities of an artificial pancreas. This would include the low glucose suspend now under consideration, possibly systems that introduce means glucagon for severe lows as well has high glucose insulin bolusing. Beyond the artificial pancreas the FDA should be preparing guidance for the approval of faster insulins, smart insulins, better infusion sets and data processing tools that facilitate better manual and automated glucose management. 
A Comment on Hacking and Distractions. 
In the time since the  FDA has opened this docket to consider devices to better manage type 1 diabetes through low glucose suspend, provided by multiple devices that communicate wirelessly, there have news reports about ‘hacking’ diabetes device wireless communications. 
The possibility of such interference is an appropriate issue for the FDA and device manufacturers to consider and to address in a timely manner. However such willful interference is extraordinarily unlikely. It  should not be seen as a reason to prevent far more significant advances to mitigate far more significant risks.
Specifically in the case of low glucose suspend, the risk of severe hypoglycemia is a real risk that has been made all the more tangible by the untimely death of young people living with type 1 diabetes in the past year. Developing guidance for the approval of devices that may have helped prevent such tragedies should be a FDA priority. Given that such devices are approved and available in other countries suggest that the FDA guidance, under consideration here, is in fact over due. 
I strongly urge the FDA to prioritize risks. Hypoglycemia is currently costing the lives of American children. Guidance on device such as low glucose suspend should not be overly delayed by esoteric communications risks.