Future Apple Watch Rumored to Include Glucose Monitoring and Smart Bands

[chucker23n1]

If people are going to use the data from these to determine insulin doses, it's going to want to be AT LEAST AS ACCURATE as actually measuring the blood glucose level. If it's not, the results can be lethal in the short term, and quite harmful in the long term.

Nah. If it's close enough to measurements (which ones? Dermal tissue?), that's typically good enough for bolus insulin.

For the long term, you take the HbA1c anyway.

Compared to traditional measuring, a constantly-attached watch band could deliver continuous values including trends, much like a CGM can. So it's already in several ways more useful than the average measurement.

If it works, that is. Which I don't quite buy.

And to be used for this purpose it's going to have to be FDA approved (and other regulatory bodies in other countries).

Pretty sure Apple is aware of that.

 

[D.T.]

Maybe, maybe not. No hospital uses such technology to measure blood glucose IN VIVO.

If people are going to use the data from these to determine insulin doses, it's going to want to be AT LEAST AS ACCURATE as actually measuring the blood glucose level. If it's not, the results can be lethal in the short term, and quite harmful in the long term. And to be used for this purpose it's going to have to be FDA approved (and other regulatory bodies in other countries).

Sometimes these things are not just about how much money you can throw at a problem, despite how much Silicon Valley believes this.

I get it. I love tech. I'm a doctor. This would be great... but I think many in the tech world can get a little carried away sniffing their own farts.

Tread VERY CAREFULLY Apple...

I totally understand, I mean, I get it pretty well too. I led a medical informatics project with the Mayo (here in North Florida), developed some of the first online diabetes management tech, provided patient collaboration, monitoring facilitation, had the ability to mark outliers for caregiver notification. At the time, the the "hi tech" blood glucose device was [of course] invasive, but digital in that it would generate a file that could be uploaded (it attached to a computer like a USB device), of course will all the proper HIPPA compliance/cryptography, etc., in place. There's a bunch of instrumentation companies with releases planned for '17/'18 providing all sorts of really slick, continuous monitoring - and all with pretty exotic back end analytics to project health, predict negative events and whatnot - of course all this is being very carefully scrutinized from a clinical standpoint, but I'm hopeful some of that thrown money will provide more than just lining the pockets of VCs

 

[kronusdark]

There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple might come up with it, but it's pretty damn close to impossible. Plus, I doubt Apple is going to attempt to go down the road of making the Apple Watch a 'medical grade' device - slightly more hoops to jump over there (FDA in the US for a start)... for good reason. If it's not accurate, it will cost lives.

People who think blood glucose can be detected the same way the pulse is detected on the watch (using differential absorption of light), clearly have no understanding of physiology, physics or biochemistry... current monitors make a lot of assumptions.

And for non-diabetics, what the hell are you going to do with the data - the signal to noise ratio shrinks even further, yet we think we're all 'well informed'. The Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

I agree, chances are pretty slim. but I would certainly use it. I am not diabetic, but it might be interesting data for my Ketogeneic Diet.

 

[Jack Burton]

I give apple crap about gimmicks all the time, but a glucose meter would be fantastic for a lot of people.

 

[Quu]

Also your battery getting another year older and weaker could sway you. I'm on Series 0 myself and I'm certain that Series 3 will open my wallet. Glucose monitoring would be incredibly cool. (But I'm skeptical of them being able to do it.) But still I'm sure there will be enough upgrades to convince me.

Very true, I'm expecting them to release Series 3 this September though and my battery is still going strong. I still finish the day with about 40% battery left. If it suddenly performed bad I'd upgrade for sure.

 

[joueboy]

The future of Apple Watch are the bands and Cook is undeniably will admit that. It's a money making feature for Apple, now Tim wants more. So they will start calling these smart bands, expect to see more expensive bands in the future and laugh at it. But Apple will make ton of money just like they do now.

 

[TP2theFB]

from a diabetic i have been hearing this for years. Ill believe it when i see it. And to get an actual accurate reading... meh. Took cgm years to get a reading accurate enough to be able to correct off of which just was approved this year in Canada. I am all for it, just tired reading about it.

EDIT: As well i remember reading something tim cook said a year ago

In 2015, Cook said that it was possible to imagine Apple putting a device through FDA approval in an interview with the Telegraph.

"We don’t want to put the watch through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) process. I wouldn’t mind putting something adjacent to the watch through it, but not the watch, because it would hold us back from innovating too much, the cycles are too long..."

 

[bollman]

And for non-diabetics, what the hell are you going to do with the data - the signal to noise ratio shrinks even further, yet we think we're all 'well informed'. The Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

This!
What the heck is up with all this "measuring your body"-frenzy?
I guess it's all about instant gratification. Yes, your heart rate went up when exercising, and yes, it didn't go up as high after a few weeks of training. Do you _really_ need a multi-thousand-dollar setup of phone and watch to actually know this?
Everybody's getting bored with posting food pictures on social media, now it's time to brag about heart rates and glucose levels. Yay.

 

[seasurfer]

Stop! Before commenting on diabetes, you need to educate yourself on the differences between Type 1 (non-preventable auto-immune disease) vs Type 2 (typically adult onset due to unhealthy lifestyle - more common and preventable).

Careful. Your statement about Type 2 diabetes is not entirely corrent. Type 2 is not always preventable. It is mainly due to genetics, and not necessarily an unhealthy lifestyle, though an unhealthy lifestyle may make it worse sometimes.

Not all Type 2 diabetes is due to an unhealthy lifestyle. Genetics plays a very big role in the development of type 2 diabetes. Simply being fat does not cause diabetes. If that were the case then nearly 100% of fat people would have it. Roughly 35% of fat people are completely metabolically healthy and never go on to develop diabetes or other metabolic disorders, even if they never diet or exercise.

Research has shown that changes in the beta cells of the pancreas (the cells that make insulin) start taking place as early as 10 years before the development of observable changes in blood sugar start to happen... the "prediabetic stage." Many people can prevent the progression to full diabetes if it is caught at the prediabetic stage, but just as many still become diabetic, even if they do everything they're supposed to.

Also, the idea that being fat causes diabetes is not entirely true. Not every Type 2 diabetic is fat. Many of them are normal weight. Type 2 diabetes is a disease of insulin resistance... the body needs more insulin to control blood sugars than a normal person does. The body is able to control sugars up to a point, just by making more and more insulin, until it's cranking out all the insulin it can possibly make and it's still not enough to keep blood sugar levels in normal range. That's when we call them prediabetic and then diabetic later. One of the (not very often mentioned) effects of high levels of insulin in the blood is weight gain. Insulin promotes the storage of excess energy as fat. Simply put, high levels of insulin makes people fat and keeps them fat. That is why it is harder for diabetic people to lose weight. When you treat diabetic people with medicines that lower the body's insulin levels in the bloodstream, they are able to lose weight more easily.

So... it is more likely that you're fat because you're insulin resistant than being insulin resistant because you're fat.

 

[getalot681]

There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple might come up with it, but it's pretty damn close to impossible. Plus, I doubt Apple is going to attempt to go down the road of making the Apple Watch a 'medical grade' device - slightly more hoops to jump over there (FDA in the US for a start)... for good reason. If it's not accurate, it will cost lives.

People who think blood glucose can be detected the same way the pulse is detected on the watch (using differential absorption of light), clearly have no understanding of physiology, physics or biochemistry... current monitors make a lot of assumptions.

And for non-diabetics, what the hell are you going to do with the data - the signal to noise ratio shrinks even further, yet we think we're all 'well informed'. The Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

As someone else pointed out there is already significant progress towards detecting glucose similar to the way a pulse is detected. Maybe Apple can figure it out, or maybe they won't, but making the comment that no one in the medical industry has done it so there is no way Apple can't is a bit naive. All those companies currently producing glucose monitoring equipment - they probably enjoy selling customers a constant supply of monitoring strips at healthy profits. Doubt they are too interested in producing a device that would take away that continual stream of high margin income.

 

[WalterNeff]

Blood chemistry monitoring in the watch could make it more popular than the iPhone. If we had a device that could tell us how what we ate was immediately impacting us, or if something is 'off' with our blood signifying potential illness... wearables would become a near-necessity for everybody.

New job: Watch check gal at McDonalds.

 

[melgross]

Supposedly, Series 3 will be getting LTE, if the radio is low enough on power consumption.

 

[yesnek]

As a Type-1 diabetic i just can't wrap my head around what a healthy person would use glucose monitoring for. You don't really need to know about your blood glucose level, your pancreas will take care of that.
Don't get me wrong: I personally would love to have that functionality. Adding a working (!) glucose monitoring system to the apple watch would make it an instant buy for my. But please don't make "oh my god! my blood glucose level spiked after breakfest!" the new "I have celiac disease".

 

[soanis]

there's already a camera watch band called CMRA, saw it the other day on youtube...(perhaps it's a kickstarter project)
seems to be recording video messages you can send via the watch

 

[djcerla]

If true, this will make for at the very least 100-150M Watches sold in one year, with accompanying iPhones to boot.

Diabete is that big.

 

[djlythium]

There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple might come up with it, but it's pretty damn close to impossible. Plus, I doubt Apple is going to attempt to go down the road of making the Apple Watch a 'medical grade' device - slightly more hoops to jump over there (FDA in the US for a start)... for good reason. If it's not accurate, it will cost lives.

People who think blood glucose can be detected the same way the pulse is detected on the watch (using differential absorption of light), clearly have no understanding of physiology, physics or biochemistry... current monitors make a lot of assumptions.

And for non-diabetics, what the hell are you going to do with the data - the signal to noise ratio shrinks even further, yet we think we're all 'well informed'. The Dunning-Kruger effect on display.

I like how critically you think.

I would only argue that, it seems to me, Apple would definitely try to make the Watch a medical-grade device. It takes incredible accuracy (reliability and validity included) to create such a machine, and Apple's obsession with precision, as well as their mass market influence, makes it the perfect candidate to attempt such a feat. Now, whether or not they achieve this goal is yet to be seen, but I think they'd, at minimum, try.

 

[blcamp]

I think you're confusing Apple with Samsung.

LOL... I didn't say exploding or catching fire, although my iPhone 7 has ran quite hot a few times. But therein is the point... the battery running warm could pose a potential risk; and further, it could throw off otherwise normal readings from the Watch as well.

 

[Rogifan]

heart sensor in the strap....and accurate HR in the gym doing weights and I'm in

So the watch would have two heart sensors? Or you'd only get the heart sensor if you bought that band? How expensive woukd the bands become?

 

[NachoGrande]

Blood chemistry monitoring in the watch could make it more popular than the iPhone. If we had a device that could tell us how what we ate was immediately impacting us, or if something is 'off' with our blood signifying potential illness... wearables would become a near-necessity for everybody.

People have survived for 1000s of years without such technologies. "near-necessity" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Vanilla35]

I have a Series 0. The Series 1 and 2 did not sway me to upgrade one bit. But Series 3 with Glucose monitoring? That could sway me.

How about they redesign the chunky beast first

 

[chucker23n1]

People have survived for 1000s of years without such technologies. "near-necessity" is a bit of a stretch.

And yet electricity and telecommunications are considered "near-necessities" now.

 

[ckasper]

Maybe, maybe not. No hospital uses such technology to measure blood glucose IN VIVO.

If people are going to use the data from these to determine insulin doses, it's going to want to be AT LEAST AS ACCURATE as actually measuring the blood glucose level. If it's not, the results can be lethal in the short term, and quite harmful in the long term. And to be used for this purpose it's going to have to be FDA approved (and other regulatory bodies in other countries).

Sometimes these things are not just about how much money you can throw at a problem, despite how much Silicon Valley believes this.

I get it. I love tech. I'm a doctor. This would be great... but I think many in the tech world can get a little carried away sniffing their own farts.

Tread VERY CAREFULLY Apple...

The FDA recently approved Dexcom's G5 CGM for insulin dosing. https://diatribe.org/fda-approves-dexcom-g5-cgm-for-insulin-dosing. Granted, the Dexcom is measuring interstitial fluid under the skin but the sensors are good for 7 days (a lot more in most cases), and they do need to be calibrated every 12 hours so there is some blood checking going on but much less than without the sensor. I see this as the next logical step. Having lived with the Dexcom for some time, I can tell you they are pretty darn accurate.

 

[44267547]

The future of Apple Watch are the bands and Cook is undeniably will admit that. It's a money making feature for Apple, now Tim wants more. So they will start calling these smart bands, expect to see more expensive bands in the future and laugh at it. But Apple will make ton of money just like they do now.

Did Cook admit this? If he did, do you have a source indicating that he said that?

But I agree the bands are profitable for Apple. It costs approximately $2.30 to make a Sport band and then sell it for $50.00. That's a 96% profit.

Hopefully Apple retains the band connector as is, being most have multiple bands for the Watch. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

https://www.geek.com/apple/49-apple-watch-sport-band-only-costs-2-05-to-make-1625665/?amp=1

 

[Porco]

People have survived for 1000s of years without such technologies. "near-necessity" is a bit of a stretch.

No, the salient point is that many people have died earlier than they had to from preventable diseases for 1000s of years precisely because they didn't have data that warned them so they could take appropriate measures to deal with whatever the problem was!

 

[chucker23n1]

The FDA recently approved Dexcom's G5 CGM for insulin dosing. https://diatribe.org/fda-approves-dexcom-g5-cgm-for-insulin-dosing. Granted, the Dexcom is measuring interstitial fluid under the skin but the sensors are good for 7 days (a lot more in most cases), and they do need to be calibrated every 12 hours so there is some blood checking going on but much less than without the sensor. I see this as the next logical step. Having lived with the Dexcom for some time, I can tell you they are pretty darn accurate.

Unless I'm missing something, that's an invasive sensor, much like the FreeStyle Libre.