Hey PWDs: Have you ever read the headline of an article and thought to yourself, Gee, that sounds familiar? That’s what we thought last week when news of a nano-tattoo for monitoring blood sugar started popping up again. We first heard about this technology way back in 2002, and then again in 2009, and even in 2010. So is anything really new there?
Turns out the latest is that scientists at Northeastern University are integrating iPhones into their research. Dr. Heather Clark and her team in Boston have been hard at work over the years on a tiny, discrete tattoo for glucose sensing. Like a normal tattoo, dye is injected under the skin. But unlike a normal tattoo, the dye has special nanosensors that, when co-mingled with a particular molecule like glucose, “fluoresces” and is detectible by shining a little light on the tattoo.
Now Dr. Clark’s group has developed an optical device for reading the tattoos that attaches directly to the back of an iPhone (see photo). Patients would be able to see the changes in color that high and low blood sugar produce. Also, the brighter the sensors fluoresce, the higher the blood sugar.
How accurate is a system like this? Well, the technology and tools to analyze the florescence are still in development, but Dr. Clark is hopeful that one day patients will be able to dose their insulin based off their tattoo. Eventually her team also wants to develop an iPhone app that will help analyze the blood sugar readings produced.
What’s also new about the nanotech tattoo is its tiny size, taking up all of 2mm. So we’re pretty sure Mom would be OK with this one. “It can only be faintly seen in the skin,” Dr. Clark explains. “It does change color, but the change is fairly subtle.”
Also, it’s not really permanent, but rather more like a temporary tat. Because of the materials used, the tattoo would need to be replaced about every week, as it would be shed with the outer layer of your skin. Dr. Clark explains, “Two things make it less permanent: where we place it in the skin — less deeply than a traditional tattoo — and the materials we make it out of. We purposely use materials that degrade with time for biocompatibility reasons.”
So what’s the realistic ETA on this cool new technology? Dr. Clark would like to move into human trials, but her team isn’t quite ready for that yet. She expects to see “progress within the next 5 to 10 years.” Ugh! Then we all know we won’t have much of an idea how things will really go until the FDA gets a closer look.
“The biggest challenge has been finding funding for such an ambitious goal,” Dr. Clark says.
And there’s the rub, Friends. One of the most infuriating aspects of observing the diabetes industry — and really medical research in general — is watching millions of dollars being spent on promoting and making incremental changes to treatments that already exist (drugs, pumps, meters, etc.). But when it comes to funding something truly innovative that could revolutionize the way we manage diabetes… ? Small wonder (or should I say nano-wonder?) that we patients are bitter at times…
)
Stellar point at the ending there, Amy. Thanks for reporting on this, my friend. D-Journalism at its best, in the blogosphere!
WHOA!! This is soo cool!!!!!
I would wear the ugliest tattoo in the world if a florescent light gave me my blood sugar accurately. I really, really would.
Cool – I kinda always wanted a tatoo…. This one reminds of the olden days where we were checking sugar through urine tests where you were at one of several, loosey goosey levels (I vaguely, if not correctly recall) negative, 1+, 2+, 3+ or 4+. Or something like that. And that only indicated what was happening hours ago. So, If it only takes them ten years to figure out the specificity levels of sugar and evrything else with the tats, I’d say it is not fast enough, but still, pretty darn fast considering our history. Sounds like a great idea!!! Very interesting info – thanks!!!!
Sounds like a great idea. The big question, though, since I have no qualms whatsoever with pricking my finger numerous times per day (and night) – since I, too, used to test my urine – is this:
How much will it cost?!!! Test strips are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced, and I thank God every day that I’m lucky enough to have insurance.
This actually showed up in this week’s edition [Sept/Oct] of the AARP magazine. Interesting of course, but when the money is not there to support it, that usually means the VCs see this as a dead-end money-pit until the researchers have themselves boot-strapped together a way to support it internally and have shown enough research success to bring the technology up to at least the stage where some limited human clinical trials have been approved.
I say this as an ex-researcher in Madison WI who was part of the tech team working on implantable glucose sensing technology that eventually became the kernel upon which Dexcom was launched. Even very interesting research will languish for years until a critical mass of success has been achieved to permit VCs to roll the dice. You can’t blame them for avoiding the unnecessary risk of unproven technology, especially in the times we seem to be entering where extreme pressure will be brought to bear on constraining health care costs and commercial success of even successful technology may be in doubt.
ah, yes, the $$$ question. and yes, “bitter” ‘s the word
What good is something that’s only going to last a week? Make it at least 6 months and we’ll talk, but you’re going to charge me god knows how much for a tattoo that’s going to wash off? We’re looking at the price of the ink, the needle(s), to have someone do it, and the office visit. For a weeks worth of something I need a light to look at? Give me a 1/4 inch dot (that won’t wash off) that goes from green to red when my sugar drops to 75 and I’d love it.
Infrared light through a fingernail has been picking up O2 sats for years, so one might think this technology is closer than the corporate mechanism is letting on. As a brittle T1, this kind of advancement would be huge-but realistically, this kind of change to the industrial complex of blood glucose monitering will be a painfully lethargic process.
BTW, thanks for this website-