Game changer if or should I say when it happens…
It would be amazing but I’m not counting on this being anything good.
I currently have an Apple Watch and the blood oxygen sensor isn’t very good and that seems a lot easier to do through the skin then blood glucose. For example Apple didn’t get the blood oxygen sensor FDA approved because its not accurate enough.
I do think Apple will try hard to make this work but the fact no one else has done it before isn’t filling me with confidence.
Lot’s of companies have tested this technology over the past 20 years, but not one has had the accuracy required by the FDA to be approved. I think you will find these watches to be better than nothing to alert a person that has no clue that they are diabetic to the fact that they are diabetic and need help, but not accurate enough for daily diabetes management.
I agree, although the article says this:
“The optical sensor gathers information from the wavelengths that are caused by the vibrations of a material when a laser light is scattered after hitting the material. The accuracy of this signal is what MIT and Samsung have been able to achieve.”
But it doesn’t specifically say accurate for dosing and MARD testing. May be fine for general trend and identifying pre-diabetes with spikes after meals or lows from exercise. But not accurate for insulin dose decisions and pump integration.
I do work with Ramen band testing on UV spectrometers.
It is a very good method and rock solid.
However the intensity of the light source and the fact that it needs to penetrate skin makes me think it can’t be terribly accurate.
In the laboratory, if dust gets on the lens, it will shift the detector. It will detect other elements and carry over is a big problem.
So I don’t know how this is possible in a tiny watch, however I’ll wait until it’s out to tear it apart.
I would love an accurate cgm that doesn’t require poking holes in me and sensors.
Unless they call the value generated something other than BG, these would have to undergo medical device testing. There are certain words/claims that are covered by FDA jurisdiction. However you make up a brand new term that doesn’t have any governmental oversight, and hope your marketing team is good enough to pursuade the public it’s the same thing without actually using any of the protected words.
Common example: Any device or consumable that claims to reduce fat or help you lose weight is protected by FDA jurisdiction. However, SIZE and APPEARANCE are not medical claims and anyone is free to throw out these references with abandon. “Reduces ugly stomach bulge.” “Take inches off your hips and thighs.” “Smooths the appearance of…” The people throwing their money at these manufacturers ASSUME the product can achieve the medical claim, even though they never actually made a medical claim.
So in theory, smart watch makers could call it something like a “sugar indicator”, that isn’t recognized as a medical claim, and evade the FDA all together.
OR, they could also go ahead and push the devices through the FDA and take on the added expense. Remember, the bar is set pretty low for glucometers. FDA allows 20% error in either direction. If a laboratory sample says you were 180 mg/dl at the time of testing, the watch could read anywhere from 144 to 216 mg/dl and still meet minimum criteria.
It’s not the accuracy we’ve come to expect, of course, but it’s good enough to put on the market.
I actually don’t what the criteria for ACE devices is, though. Do they expect a lower MARD before they can be used in pump automation? I doubt we’ll see any of the automated systems using this in the near future, though.
I have to agree with Chris. I have a Garmin Fenix 3HR and the heart rate function is not dependable. I bought this watch thinking I would be able to use it and not the chest strap when I ride and workout. The watch uses optical sensors for HR while the chest strap picks up electrical signals.
I read up on this Samsung and Apple CGM attempt. It uses an optical spectrum analysis type system. I can see it working sometimes and like the HR monitor sometimes not. I wouldn’t want my life to depend on it.
Well over a year ago, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, was wearing a prototype detector built into an Apple Watch. Since I was wearing a fairly new one at the time, I was quite interested. But despite Cook’s pronouncements, after a couple weeks not much was heard of the device, and I suspect it turned out to be more difficult than they had predicted. (I guess this is the device Luis3 was describing).
There have been many tries at producing a non-invasive true BG tester–I participated in a brief trial of one such many years ago–but nothing has ever come to fruition. …Maybe next year!
Omg did anyone try the glucowatch?
Holy moly. You had to put a sensor on your wrist and it was absolutely as invasive as any cgm.
Then the watch went on top of it. And it tested you, I think ever 10 min. It’s been 20 years so I can’t really remember.
But what I can remember is that every 10 min it would electrocute me. Impossible to sleep with, and you could not exercise because sweat messed it up.
Add calibration every 8 hours and the you see why it failed miserably.
That’s what I think of when I hear stories of cgms in watches. Perhaps it’s not fair of me but that’s what I think of.
The Apple and Samsung watches use an optical sensor. I doubt it will be invasive or irritating. I do doubt the accuracy of such a method as the optical heart rate sensors are not particularly dependable. We shall see.
Edit: After wearing an Apple Watch 6 for a couple of weeks I find the HR so far very accurate. One thing I think is very important is to keep the back of the watch very clean.
A minor update on Apple watch reading blood sugar levels.