Advertisement

16 Responses

  1. Sarah Jane (sajabla)
    Sarah Jane (sajabla) January 26, 2010 at 7:35 am | | Reply

    Excellent information. Exciting things on the diabetes treatment front. Thank you for posting this, Amy!

  2. George
    George January 26, 2010 at 8:47 am | | Reply

    Thanks for the info Amy! This was great!!!

  3. Leighann of D-Mom Blog
    Leighann of D-Mom Blog January 26, 2010 at 10:14 am | | Reply

    “How likely is it that the new product will be a truly integrated device with only ONE infusion set?”

    Peeking at the Insulet OmniPod investor’s meeting slides, it appears that an OmniPod with integrated CGM is on the horizon. I would hope that this requires only one pod and not a separate insertion site for CGM. And yes, I release they won’t talk to each other, but I am much more likely to consider a CGM that is integrated with our existing equipment.

    I hope that there is a patch pump available as part of the artificial pancreas equipment. I can’t see switching to a pump that requires tubing at this point.

  4. Khürt Williams
    Khürt Williams January 26, 2010 at 11:02 am | | Reply

    Exciting news. I am a little concerned that the device will only allow for high “recommended’ BG levels (between 90-150). I consider that too high for proper long term diabetes management with low incidence of complication later in life. I believe keeping your reading over 90 most of the time will lead to diabetes complications in late life. I want all my toes intact when I dance at my kids weddings.

  5. Lauren K
    Lauren K January 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm | | Reply

    Wow Khurt you have outdone me on the tight-control front. An A1c of 4.7 would correspond to an avg BG of 90. That is insanely tight for a type 1, and not do-able for me. I keep mine around 5.5 and like to think I’m doing well. 5.5 is “high normal” A1c, but it’s the best I can do. I can’t believe that people are comfortable walking around with an A1c above 6 — they are digging themselves an early grave.

  6. חדשות סוכרת » Blog Archive » עוד כמה מילים על הלבלב המלאכותי

    [...] על פרוייקט הלבלב המלאכותי של ה- JDRF , מצורף תקציר של ראיון מעניין שהתפרסם באתר Diabetes Mine. אמי טינדריץ משוחחת עם אהרון קואלסקי מה-JDRF על פרוייקט [...]

  7. T1 in Boston
    T1 in Boston January 26, 2010 at 10:40 pm | | Reply

    (Thanks for your cheerful comments, Lauren. We can’t wait till you become an MD!)

  8. Cherise
    Cherise January 26, 2010 at 10:55 pm | | Reply

    Amy-

    thank you for posting. I’m excited to see how all of this plays out. I really hope the JDRF takes your advice (re: last question)

  9. Aftab
    Aftab January 26, 2010 at 11:59 pm | | Reply

    I am not very optimistic about this. It seems very little change from existing systems. If they want to get it right then the first step would be to find a way to implement this in a single infusion set

  10. Leighann of D-Mom Blog
    Leighann of D-Mom Blog January 27, 2010 at 9:27 am | | Reply

    Realize that as an adult you may think that 90-150 is not tight enough control. But for growing children, they are often given a much higher range. My daughter’s target range is 100-200. We treat lows below 80 and begin correcting for highs at 150 (mostly to make her rebound more quickly, though 150-200 is not technically high for her). A best case scenario is to be able to program the unit for your own range as dictated by your own care team.

  11. Sarah
    Sarah January 27, 2010 at 5:54 pm | | Reply

    Will a new CGMS be used? Because I don’t understand how the current system with it’s huge inaccuracy would be able to safely do what it is supposed to do. I have a CGMS MM 522 and the system is so out of range (alarming that I am going low when I am stable, stating that I am high when I’m low or vise versa, etc.) that I would never use such a system. Turning off a pump for 2 hours during the night when I am already high could be a one way ticket to DKA. Not a fan, and this seems to offer very little more than what’s already out there.

  12. Lauren K
    Lauren K January 27, 2010 at 7:12 pm | | Reply

    By the way, T1 in Boston, I post here as a private individual with type 1 diabetes. I am NOT, in any respect, a healthcare provider. I am a student and my opinions are strictly that of a layperson’s. It’s my opinion that the closer to euglycemia, the greater chance of a healthy, long, complication-free life. That means keeping my numbers as close to a non-diabetic person’s as is possible — under 6.0%.

    I have a type 1 diabetic sibling who was diagnosed as a child. His sugars consistently ran high, especially during adolescence. He is now in his twenties and has many subsequent health problems, serious enough to impair his daily life. So I’ve witnessed the ravages of poor control.

    A google search will reveal that the recommendations for BG control as measured by A1c have been trending downward. Currently the AACE is recommending 6.5%, which is down from 7.0%. Similar to the trends in BP and LDL recommendations, I wouldn’t be surprised if future BG recommendations were for increasingly tight control. Personally I want a shot at a very long, healthy life, so I’ll strive for the A1c that best allows me to reach that goal.

  13. T1 in Boston
    T1 in Boston January 27, 2010 at 9:13 pm | | Reply

    It wasn’t the facts, Lauren – it was the tone.

  14. Emily
    Emily February 1, 2010 at 3:51 am | | Reply

    Thank for sharing your great explanation. Its more informative article.

  15. Clarke
    Clarke February 8, 2010 at 10:23 pm | | Reply

    I like that there was never a real answer to why the JDRF chose Animas over Medtronic. It was obviously over money. Since Medtronic already has a functioning closed-loop system in patient testing phases, why would they need to “share” the profits with JDRF. “JDRF has never endorsed a specific company of product”??? What was this announcement then? It is nothing more than a way for JDRF to gain a percent of profits if Animas and Dexcom stop talking about developing a closed loop and actually delivers one.

    I have been told that Medtronic already has a single site, single needle infusion set and sensor combination developed. Mr. Kowalski states that this is a hurdle for Animas to have to overcome. Considering all the other hurdles they face trying to develop the correct algorithyms, combined sensor and infusion site, etc, it is no wonder why they claim to be 4+ years away. Animas has been claiming to have a sensor augmented system for over 2 years now, and still nothing. Thanks for getting patients hopes up for more choices.

    I guess I am just bitter for the fact that this all seams to be a publicity and profit motivated announcement by JDRF and Animas. The fact that they will exploit patients with T1 such as myself and others in order to get their share of the profits. If they were truly interested in the closed loops system, they would have gone with the company who will provide the best product at the quickest amount of time. Why does the JDRF not even acknowledge the technology exists? Does it go back to that “endorsement” arrangement.

    As seeing where Medtronic has ALREADY developed and is ALREADY testing its closed loop system, my continued support and choice in pumps goes to Medtronic.

  16. Dessie
    Dessie June 1, 2014 at 11:21 am | | Reply

    Hello this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting
    to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML.
    I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so I wanted to get
    guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!

Leave a Reply