Hello All,
Check this out, looks promising. Not a CGM but more of an on demand check your BG level and log them to your phone. No more finger pricks… Due out in 2018, pending approvals. Fingers Crossed.
Kevin
wow, cool video! I wonder how it works and how accurate it is.
It’s still using interstitial fluid.
From the FAQ page, How does K’aspsul® work - “At the touch-of-a button, the probes pumps a tiny drop of interstitial fluid into the K’Track wearable device for bio-chemical analysis.”
Since there are now ways of seeing CGM on your watch, maybe I am missing what the benefit is here.
Anyone?
FDA approval mandates a certain level of accuracy, unfortunately there is a
20% margin of error allowed. I am sure it will be at least as accurate as
the standard strips. I work in the medical device field as a recruiter and
the trend in BG Measurement has been towards exceeding that margin.
Like I said, fingers crossed!!
1 Like
This is new to me, so just speculation but maybe the main advantage (relative to in situ cgm’s that also work from interstitial fluid) is no sensor/transmitter/adhesion/rotation routine. Obvious disadvantage is much lower frequency of (interstitial) bg measurements.
I’m skeptical that it would be as accurate as a Dex sensor but I guess we’ll see if they have trials going on.
how interesting! we’d love to hear about your experiences in that field
Is this like the Glucowatch that was pulled from the market many years ago?
CGM’s are crazy expensive, inserting the sensors can be tricky and
personally since I am not type 1 my insurance wont approve me.
Interstitial fluid has a lag time of what 15 minutes? I can live with
tapping my watch & that delay compared to carrying this ridiculous kit and
creating a biohazard every time I want to know what is up…
Even with my insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield) it was going to cost me
$120-140 per month for a CGM.
I also think there are plenty of non diabetic folks or pre-diabetic folks
that are starting to watch these numbers.
This price point and non invasive nature make this way more accessible to
folks on many levels
Ah, gotcha. Not having to wear the sensor and lesser cost. That makes sense. Thanks! Wasn’t really sure.
My experience was that after I was diagnosed in April and coincidentally
being a personal friend of my endocrinologist we applied for a sensor.
Since I am not a type 1 (no antibodies present) I by default have to be a
type 2 according to the insurance codes. As such I do not qualify for a
CGM coverage. Not knowing all this at the outset I was working with Dexcom
on ordering my sensor and they were very good about getting me all the
pricing info. My wife is a nurse practitioner so we are LUCKY and
typically have decent coverage. With our Blue Cross Blue Shield offered by
the large hospital network her clinic is part of they pay 80% of the cost
of the CGM and it would still cost us $120-140 a month averaged out over a
year, for the sensors, the transmitter and receiver.
I found it rather disheartening, not interesting at all. Here I was newly
diagnosed, out of the blue (as in no family history, good health, active,
never a junk food or soda guy) with the absolute most to learn about how
my “new” diabetic body would respond to all these medications and food and
I am told here: Take this 20 or 30 year old technology, we know there is
better out there and this is pretty inconvenient and less accurate but take
this and figure it out.
So I use a lot of test strips, take copious notes on what I eat, how my
stress levels and sleep affects things. And so far I am beating this
thing, however it is a massive effort. Now I am told I control my sugar so
well that I definitely don’t need a CGM. I know I could do better with
more information and instead of encouraging me to to do with convenience
and technology I am told keep on drawing your blood…
Okay I will get off my soap box now. I hope that answered your curiosity
2 Likes
No it is my understanding that operated on a different technology. One
that used optical flouresence to measure BG. This actually samples the
interstitial fluid.
And I don’t believe the Glucowatch was pulled from the market. If I recall
the company was a startup that wasn’t well managed so they ran out of cash
before they became popular.
That was before smartwatches or smartphones for that matter, and before we
expected half of the world to be diabetic or pre diabetic…
Yes, all that makes sense. I was dimwitted in my assessment because I was only thinking within my own perspective of what it would do for me, rather than all the other situations you mentioned - like cost, and insurance approval, and T1 vs T2.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I hope it is a useful tool for you!
I completely agree.
I think there are some contradictory messages from the insurers about promoting preventive, healthy living, but not funding some critical tools until after you’ve shown you’ve suffered ill consequences. To me a cgm is a great example of something where you can’t really have it both ways.
1 Like
Hey I did the same, posting it like it was some panacea for all of us. A
CGM is going to provide a stream of information, this will only sample when
you hit the button. My guess is a continuous one will follow.
In order to get approval many of these companies go for the less
sophisticated approach first. Once proven it is easier for them to get
clearance on the fancier more sophisticated products. Abbott for instance
has that Freestyle, then they introduced the Libre where you get a 2 week
implant and wave your meter near it for a reading. I know they are testing
a continuous version now.
Same reason everything tends to launch in Europe first. There are lower
regulatory barriers to market approval. If the FDA sees it worked in
Europe they are far more likely to approve it for US use.
I personally can’t wait for it and have contacted the company to see if
they need any help with testing, feedback etc.
Very interesting, and very expensive. Will be interesting to see if any insurance companies decide to put it on a preferred list. Looks like the “watch” is about $150, but the actual monitor capsule is $99/month. The version that can do some kind of limited continuous monitoring is $200 and $199/month.
Interesting idea.
Is it really more expensive? Lets say a person tests a minimum of 5 times a day, that 150 strips a month, at $35 to $50 for 50 strips that adds up to $105 to $150 a month. That is in the same ballpark as you just mentioned.
The website say a monitor capsule is good for unlimited reads in a 30day period. The more often times a person test the more economical it becomes. The one time cost of the watch itself does not seem to be that much of a concern.
Well, I suppose if you are paying out of pocket for everything, then maybe. I pay $45 for 3 months worth of strips. So a year’s worth costs me $180, whereas this watch would cost me a minimum of $1350 and a maximum of $2600 a year.
You’re right that if I were paying per strip, and I was testing more frequently, then it might pan out. But do people commonly pay $1300 or $2600 a year for strips? I couldn’t afford this unless my insurance covered it.
Interesting technology, but I doubt a continuous one will be in the works. Maybe 3/4 times per hour. The issue, if this works at all like the glucowatch of old, is the need to stimulate the skin site with small amounts of electric current to collect a meaningful sample. That was why the old watch didn’t catch on, because in many people this created itchiness and rash. It would be neat if they have solved these issues or work using a new method. Otherwise, it will be just like glucowatch, early adopters try it, then give up. Word of mouth kills it.
Edit - didn’t read closely enough, it uses micro-needles, so at least it uses a new approach to collecting the sample. We will have to see how the skin reacts to hundreds of uses in the same spot. Would be nice if it works well.
Think I saw this technology in the movie panic room - that’s how long ago it was right around the corner for D consumers. Think I’ll not hold my breath for now. Good suspense movie tho…