Comments on: Aaron Kowalski: Your Questions on the Artificial Pancreas Answered Here

By: Clarke

Clarke — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:23:21 +0000

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.

By: Emily

Emily — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:51:27 +0000

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

By: T1 in Boston

T1 in Boston — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:13:54 +0000

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

By: Lauren K

Lauren K — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:12:31 +0000

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.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:54:16 +0000

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.

By: Leighann of D-Mom Blog

Leighann of D-Mom Blog — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:27:57 +0000

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.

By: Aftab

Aftab — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:59:55 +0000

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

By: Cherise

Cherise — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:55:35 +0000

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)

By: T1 in Boston

T1 in Boston — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:40:11 +0000

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

By: חדשות סוכרת » Blog Archive » עוד כמה מילים על הלבלב המלאכותי

חדשות סוכרת » Blog Archive » עוד כמה מילים על הלבלב המלאכותי — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:30:33 +0000

[...] 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 [...]