I have done a good deal of research into glucose sensor technology. Unfortunately, it appears no one has it right. The use of interstitial fluid is one of the best examples of such research that will not result in any usable solution regardless of the amount of money sunk into such projects as it suffers not only from latent readings of up to thirty minutes but also requires recalibration several times a day. Clearly, such a system would never replace test strips for instant, accurate readings which is really the point of all these endeavors.

As I am sure you are aware, most glucose tests today measure blood resistance. Other factors such as hydration and salt levels can distort such tests. However, new methods of measuring glucose that do not rely solely on the resistance of blood are, at least, promising alternatives.

Several such sensors exist including the micro/nano fabricated glucose sensor found at http://ttp.northwestern.edu/abstracts/viewabs.php?id=233&cat=96. After discussing this proposal with a PhD in physics, I learned this solution also fails to deliver in its promises. The fundamental issue appears to be the need to “flush” any remaining hydrogen atoms that remain in the nano tube. Such “flushing” is quite tricky as the hydrogen has a tendency to not want to leave the tube.

A different take on continuous glucose monitoring can be found at http://www.ee.psu.edu/grimes/sensors/ . Essentially this sensor is implanted in the body along with a micro magnetic coil. The magnetic coil is designed to vibrate at a frequency correlated to one’s glucose level. Alas, this too has a fundamental issue regarding fibrosis and one’s body rejecting the device as a foreign substance. Although anti-rejection medication, due to its intolerable effects on the body is obviously not the solution to such a problem, artificial heart research has yielded working solutions to such issues by finding certain polymer coatings that essentially hide the device from one’s immune system.

My take on the situation is that much of the research is hopelessly flawed and most of it is headed down a path whose stated goals fall short of current glucose monitoring sensors in latency, accuracy and even price. All this, when one takes into account the fact that current sensors are themselves overpriced, is truly disheartening.

The state of current and future glucose sensors I fear are near criminal. One can not be blamed for even questionioning the very motives of the bio industry after dealing with or using their “solutions”. As a user of the accu-chek compact, manufactured by Roche Diagnostics, I was interested in retrieving the stored readings via the infrared port on the device. The software, already being quite unusable, had a price of $25. Deciding I could at least write my own recording and graphing software and, even if to a small degree, gain a grain of control over my glucose monitoring and perhaps. I contacted Roche Diagnostics who outright refused to even provide a specification for the protocol used between the monitor and the computer. The attitude towards the customers of these manufacturers befit that of a French monarch.

Jack Sallen

Someone is definitely going to have to make vast improvements before I spend my money on one again, but I certainly will buy one when they’re easier to use.

In fact, I think diabetes will be “cured” by other means before a true closed loop system ever is successful. In fact, one Medtronic rep agreed when I said that there will *never* be a truly closed loop system…it’s too much of a liability. We all know how machines can fail. One mistake and a diabetic’s car has killed 5 people..now Medtronic is responsible for 5 deaths.

CGM’s are great, but they are not a cure nor a perm. solution. They are simply another expensive device that we as diabetics must pay for monthly in terms of supplies until we die. Trust me, if diabetes technology is so far behind today (we can build a space station but can’t perfect a CGM or non-invasive glucose testing), I have little hope that any of this will be much better in our lifetimes.

Let’s stop feeding the pockets of Big Pharma and demand a real cure, not technology to make diabetes more “controllable”.

We’ve two new ones on the horizon. The Dexcom SEVEN and the Abbott Freestyle. I think these will both be big improvements, but not huge leaps forward.

The question I ask myself is. Should I use this while waiting for something better to come along? And for the Dexcom (which has definitely not been smooth sailing for me), the answer is yes.

I’d like to be still alive when the ‘cure’ is found. So in the mean time I’ll work to maintain a semblance of control.

Also, I don’t think that low detection is the biggest benefit/appeal. I know that it wasn’t for me – I was more interested in avoiding extended overnight highs and in the ‘policing’ aspect of the device. Accuracy affects both of those, of course.

Also, CGMS would be awesome for runs and bike rides, where I don’t need 100% accuracy but do need a trend analysis to know when to pop an energy Gu or have a sip of gatorade. Of course I’d love not to prick my fingers anymore but some constant guidance would be good enough for me at this point.