Hmm, from that example, it seems the purpose would be to prompt the doctor that a formal test might be warranted.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Series 7 Rumored to Feature Blood Glucose Monitoring
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interstitial blood glucose is the basis of the Abbot device and most other CGM's. These devices are very much validated. The Dexcom system you mention as well as the Abbott Libre, arguably the two market leaders, both use interstitial fluid to measure glucose. These systems are also very much favored over traditional fingerstick testing. Continual readings vs. point in time.
I agree that a photo sensor would need to have a ton of supporting docs, testing, etc. in order to be considered accurate enough to rely on its readings in the same way one relies on Libre and Dexcom, but its not too much of a stretch to see someone with Apple's R&D managing to pull this off.
Again if accurate, this could be a game changer in terms of how diabetics approach this as well as a potential area of huge spending savings. With the average cost of Dexcom and Libre sensors being on par with the cost of an Apple watch, its not too hard to see where this would go. The sensors are only good for about 10-14 days depending on the system. The price reflects a one month supply without insurance coverage. If the allowed amounts on a sensor pack are in the $200 range with a 20% copay, a watch would pay for itself in 1 year at full retail. (Sensor packs are usually a month supply and I am guessing at the allowed charges and assuming a copay. This does not take into account deductibles and higher copays). If Apple were to partner with insurance companies offering even a 50% discount on the watch, this would equate to a huge savings for the insurance companies and consumers vs. paying for monthly supplies.
Not possible I say. You need something wet to be able
To measure serum glucose, either blood or tissue fluid.
This is likely using some kind of light, surface moisture or skin impedance. In any case I sincerely so not think they will get a device to measure accurately enough that they get medical device approval for this purpose from any country.
To measure serum glucose, either blood or tissue fluid.
This is likely using some kind of light, surface moisture or skin impedance. In any case I sincerely so not think they will get a device to measure accurately enough that they get medical device approval for this purpose from any country.
The Australian government is at fault here.
Apparently there's proposed changes to how medical devices are approved coming in Feb.
If the legislation is approved then Australia should get ECG.
Great to hear this is anticipated.
The health related features have been the main reason for me to purchase, and subsequently upgrade, my own Apple Watch.
I am sure we will see more along these lines in the years to come, likely well beyond anything we even imagine today.
The health related features have been the main reason for me to purchase, and subsequently upgrade, my own Apple Watch.
I am sure we will see more along these lines in the years to come, likely well beyond anything we even imagine today.
It's the Australian government having legislation for medical device approval that hasn't been updated since the 80's.
This means consumer grade medical devices of the sort are not allowed to be sold here.
Would love if they can eventually be able to measure insulin on the apple watch as well. This might be an easier thing to clear with the FDA?
Insulin is very important for general health and detecting pre-diabetes. You can have normal glucose, but if there is a lot of insulin being pumped out to maintain that, then thats a warning sign for diabetes. Basically "HOMA-IR"
Insulin is very important for general health and detecting pre-diabetes. You can have normal glucose, but if there is a lot of insulin being pumped out to maintain that, then thats a warning sign for diabetes. Basically "HOMA-IR"
Only if reads accurately, otherwise will be gimmicky marketing thing, like the blood oxygen thing. My point.
yes, but they are sub cutaneous and sub-dermal and not transdermal or THROUGH the epidermis to the interstitial gap
The blood vo2 estimates are way off (for me). I can't imagine how insanely inaccurate blood sugar levels would become.
Because we've had a lot of tech that promised non-invasive glucose monitoring, and so far it just hasn't panned out. Don't get your hopes up.
There's a difference between "can detect that the value is double or more the norm" and "can detect fluctuations of 30%". Diabetics tend to need the latter.
But that's exactly my point: assuming this rumor is true at all, I wouldn't be surprised if the sensor can't quite reach that level of accuracy. It can tell you if your value is about 80 or about 160 (or beyond), but not if it's in between. That's IMO just not good enough for doctors to sign off on it, because it can mean a difference of multiple insulin units.
Now, my expectation here could be wrong. Perhaps Apple has found a way to make the measurements just as accurate as invasive ones. That doesn't strike me as likely, though.
Is everything in the report information that the source actually has, or (much more likely) is a limited amount of information embellished and padded out with wishful thinking? There are a lot of questions unanswered, such as:
- precision? (e.g., 100 mg/dL? 50? 20?)
- does it need to be calibrated?
- there's a mention of Samsung shipping similar tech — is Apple licensing Samsung's tech? Is Samsung licensing Apple's tech? Are both licensing something from a third party? Did both just happen to have this breakthrough the same year? None of those seem very likely.
Sure.
Other options like Dexcom do exist, though.
Naturally, a less accurate measurement is better than none at all. If the end result is that people measure once or twice a day with an invasive method, and on top of that use the Watch for quick rough measurements, fair enough.
and not to forget, for any such new technology, it will require FDA approval and that in itself will take years ...
accuracy is required for this to be effective ... people will base their insulin take-in based on those results ... therefor it will get FDA scrutiny, and it will not be built into the AW itself, maybe a "smart" band ... and I do believe that sooner or later such a sensor will exist
yes indeed, but, assuming it does exit and will make its way into the AW: Apple will not put this into every AW model. Why? Because such technology will demand a premium. The often referred Dexcom solution for continuous glucose measurement is targeted for Type 1 and costs north of $500. Apple would create a special model that has the Ensor and it will sell for double the price. People who need it will happily pay. And, FDA approval would only be for the special model, not the entire line-up
I wish the engineers at Apple would somehow magically bring blood-pressure monitoring to the Apple Watch.
Why are people so obsessed with perfect accuracy?
Sure, maybe it's not good enough for diabetics. But there's a whole world of people who are NOT diabetics, but would like to ensure that their glucose levels remain healthy. A signal that's slightly noisy, but gives a reliable average over a few hours or so is plenty useful for informative purposes.
Apple isn't pretending to be in the "replace all your medical equipment" business; they are in the AUGMENT your health knowledge business.
I got covid a week ago and so have 2 family members. both ended up in hospital. They are in medical field so they had an O2 sensor at home. Whats keeping one of them at the hospital is the low O2 reading. I had no idea these gadgets were so critical. This will be a hot seller due to all the civid cases since you have to keep checking the reading throughout the day.
Of course it's possible! It was demonstrated by Princeton YEARS ago.
The issue is that what Princeton demo'd required a Quantum Cascade Laser to generate the appropriate mid-infra-red wavelength (to check how strongly that wavelength back scatters). Since then there has been on-going work to shrink QCLs (easy) and make them cheaper (less easy). But it's shrinking and cost that have stopped this becoming widespread already. There are various projects to turn this tech into medical-grade devices (where cost and size are less of an issue) though I don't believe any have yet shipped.
The alternative is to use telecomm lasers (near- rather than mid-infrared). The wavelengths are not really what one wants, but the hope has been that by using two of the standard telco wavelengths you can get a good enough SNR. I don't know how that has played out. My guess would be that
- that's what's being considered for the SS watch
- it *might* be what's considered for the Apple watch
- it's good enough to reveal long term patterns, but not good enough for people wondering about things like "does my body respond rapidly to baked potato?"
Princeton Engineers Develop a Non-invasive Blood Glucose Test that Uses Imaging Technology
Glucose testing is both a headache and an opportunity for clinical laboratories here in the United States and across the globe. It is a headache because many point-of-care and patient self-test glucose devices in wide use today lack the reliability of glucose testing performed in medical...
healthcare-in-europe.com
I'd probably wait this one out, but if this does indeed work I'd definitely get it for my Father.
However, given how flakey the O2 monitor is on AW S6.. well I hope for the best anyway.
However, given how flakey the O2 monitor is on AW S6.. well I hope for the best anyway.
T1 here. Have been wearing CGM for years and currently use Dexcom G6 with Tandem tslim x2 pump.
While I'd absolutely LOVE this rumor to be true, I do feel like it's groundhog day. Each year I read an article about this and I'm ok with that, but it's hard to get my hopes up. Reading through the entire thread, there is some good information, but there seems to be, at a high level, two groups of opinion.
1. People who do not have diabetes who would like the ability to their see blood sugar to make sure something isn't out of whack, which could point to the need for a doctor's visit. There seems to be a movement of sorts of people who are not diabetic who are purchasing CGM's (Dexcom, Freestyle Libre etc) just see the impact certain foods, activities etc has on their blood sugar for better well being. I could see this group as loving this feature as it's more of a cool thing to look at instead of an FDA approved tool.
2. Diabetics (T1's specifically, but T2's as well) who would love to see this but understand that it will likely not be accurate enough to make dosing decisions. The FDA in the past 2 years just recently approved the Dexcom G6 to make dosing decisions without the support of a fingerstick (some of us were already doing this with the previous generation G5, but it was not FDA approved or medically recommended). Also, the G6 is the first CGM produced by Dexcom (most agree they are the industry standard) that does not require finger stick calibrations during the life of the sensor (10 days).
For me (and I would assume most other T1's), UNLESS Apple pulls off one of the biggest upsets in diabetic history (LOL) and somehow has figured out how to get the FDA to approve a non-invasive glucose sensor medically accurate enough to make dosing decisions without the need of a fingerstick to verify the reading, the feature is nothing but a gimmick. I'm not saying this is a bad thing and as mentioned above, could be useful for the person interested in the trending nature of glucose and the impact certain foods, activities, stress etc. (read : EVERYTHING impacts blood glucose) have on it.
To illustrate how game changing this would be for diabetics, besides insulin, nothing is more important for my diabetes management than my Dexcom G6 CGM. It's my roadmap. I'm hoping we can get there one day, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
While I'd absolutely LOVE this rumor to be true, I do feel like it's groundhog day. Each year I read an article about this and I'm ok with that, but it's hard to get my hopes up. Reading through the entire thread, there is some good information, but there seems to be, at a high level, two groups of opinion.
1. People who do not have diabetes who would like the ability to their see blood sugar to make sure something isn't out of whack, which could point to the need for a doctor's visit. There seems to be a movement of sorts of people who are not diabetic who are purchasing CGM's (Dexcom, Freestyle Libre etc) just see the impact certain foods, activities etc has on their blood sugar for better well being. I could see this group as loving this feature as it's more of a cool thing to look at instead of an FDA approved tool.
2. Diabetics (T1's specifically, but T2's as well) who would love to see this but understand that it will likely not be accurate enough to make dosing decisions. The FDA in the past 2 years just recently approved the Dexcom G6 to make dosing decisions without the support of a fingerstick (some of us were already doing this with the previous generation G5, but it was not FDA approved or medically recommended). Also, the G6 is the first CGM produced by Dexcom (most agree they are the industry standard) that does not require finger stick calibrations during the life of the sensor (10 days).
For me (and I would assume most other T1's), UNLESS Apple pulls off one of the biggest upsets in diabetic history (LOL) and somehow has figured out how to get the FDA to approve a non-invasive glucose sensor medically accurate enough to make dosing decisions without the need of a fingerstick to verify the reading, the feature is nothing but a gimmick. I'm not saying this is a bad thing and as mentioned above, could be useful for the person interested in the trending nature of glucose and the impact certain foods, activities, stress etc. (read : EVERYTHING impacts blood glucose) have on it.
To illustrate how game changing this would be for diabetics, besides insulin, nothing is more important for my diabetes management than my Dexcom G6 CGM. It's my roadmap. I'm hoping we can get there one day, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Last edited:
That is certainly plausible.
The technology this involves has been mentioned in some peer reviewed journals (if I am not mistaken) but, it is not the ideal method and accuracy is in question at this point.
If Apple does release this, I think they will handle it the same way as the EKG. There is too much liability involved, especially with the method involved.
That would be great if it worked, but here's the problem. So much of your response to hypoglycemia depends on the individual. In theory, any reading below 80 is considered low. Someone who has been a diabetic for a long time and is no longer aware of their lows (cannot feel the difference between a low or in-range reading, could be highly functioning even down to 50 or lower. But even beyond that. It's not unusual for an inserted Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) to be off by as much as 50% (honestly, it happens where it's off by even more). The benefit of a CGM is for showing trends, not for identifying a moment. A CGM is good at telling you, your blood sugar is dropping or your blood sugar is rising. A CGM won't do an incredible job of telling you you're 70 vs 100 (which is an important distinction. It will, pretty reliably, tell you the direction your blood sugar moving. That is helpful information for a diabetic. I wouldn't think that would be of much interest to the Average Joe, however. Maybe I'm missing the market for this though.