Fingers Still Crossed – Because We Still Want a Non-Invasive Meter

5622

By: Eve Daniels

"It feels like you accidentally pricked yourself with a pin, only it's notaccidental and you have to do it over and over again in the same areas."

That's how Maria Beyer describes blood glucose testing. As if insulin injectionsweren't enough of a pain, Beyer says the finger-stick glucose monitor that she'sused since the mid-1990s causes sore, cracked and callused fingertips.

It seems the recent news of a breath test for checking blood glucose would offerher some comfort. According to a study out of the University of California,Irvine, breath analysis testing may prove to be the first effective, noninvasiveway for diabetics to track blood sugar levels.

But when the study made headlines in late September, Beyer was neither comfortednor convinced. To someone who has lived with type 1 diabetes for decades, thiskind of news is just the same old story.

"Every few years they say they've found the answer, but I'm still waiting," saysBeyer, who was diagnosed in 1972, just a few weeks after her 18th birthday.

Despite all of the advancements toward a less painful technology, a completelynoninvasive blood glucose meter – one that offers an accurate reading withoutpiercing the flesh – has yet to hit the market.

Granted, some devices do allow patients to lance alternative sites like toes,forearms, thighs or ear lobes. But the pain still exists, and even more so in ahighly sensitive spot like the toe. Moreover, alternative site testing isn'talways reliable, as readings from these areas may not reflect rapid changes inblood glucose levels.

Hence, the finger-stick method continues to prevail.

A Catch 22

For the more than 200 million diabetics around the world, keeping blood sugarlevels under control is vital to preventing kidney failure, heart disease, lossof vision and other complications. Current studies show that keeping theselevels as close to normal as possible can reduce complications by up to 60percent.

Most self-monitoring plans recommend testing before meals, two hours aftermeals, at bedtime, and anytime symptoms of high or low blood sugar occur. Yet,due to the trauma this daily regimen can bring, many people with diabetes resisttesting their blood as often as doctors suggest.

"If poking your finger sounds like no big deal, try doing it four times a dayfor 10 or 20 years," says Beyer.

Signs of the daily struggle of people with diabetes are scattered throughoutBeyer's home in rural Wisconsin: On the nightstand, antibiotic ointment for sorefingers and chocolate mints for midnight hypoglycemic attacks. On the bookshelf,an assortment of religious, inspirational and self-help books. In the pantry,stacks of note cards with low-fat and low-carb recipes. On the counter, post-itnotes with reminders like "Must test blood at bedtime."

One morning in December, Beyer's blood glucose tests at 343 mg/dL – more than 200points above the normal range. Even though she hasn't eaten anything since 7p.m. the night before, she blames herself for this unusually high reading.

"I didn't feel like testing my blood last night, and this is what happens," shesays. "It's hard to follow the rules all the time, especially when you're tiredand just want to go to sleep."

The pain factor is just one of many reasons to avoid frequent testing. Beyersays the social stigma of needles and bloody test strips can be even harder tohandle. For the past 20 years, she has worked part-time as a waitress at a chainpizzeria. At least once during her shift, she must test her blood in a publicbathroom stall.

"It's the only place that gives me any privacy. I would test in the break room,but it makes my coworkers cringe."

Add up these issues, and it's easy to see why people with diabetes would prefera method that doesn't involve blood.

Hope Against Hype

A former chief executive officer and chief scientific officer with Foviopticsand LifeScan research companies, respectively, Dr. John L. Smith evaluated morethan 100 noninvasive meters before writing about the many complexitiessurrounding them.

In his book, 'The Pursuit of Noninvasive Glucose: Hunting the Deceitful Turkey'published online in 2006, Smith admits that developing a noninvasive meter isamong the greatest technical challenges he has ever faced.

"It is not, perhaps, as difficult or fraught with problems as time travel or theabsolute, final cure for cancer, but it is the more tantalizing because it hasseemed for decades that the solution was always 'just around the corner.'"

Indeed, one needs only to search "noninvasive blood glucose" via Google to findmore than a million results on the grab bag of miracle monitors that have comeand gone in recent years.

Be it a futuristic laser beam or a color-shifting contact lens, both thescholarly journals and popular media outlets cover each new technology with thesame tone: Diabetics, rejoice! Your finger-sticking days may finally be over.

The reality, however, is usually quite different from the advanced press. Takethe GlucoWatch G2 Biographer, for example. In the early 21st century, the U.S.Food and Drug Administration approved this noninvasive device to continuouslydetect glucose trends in children, adolescents and adults with diabetes.

Manufactured by Cygnus Inc., the GlucoWatch measured blood sugar levelstransdermally, using an electric current to extract glucose molecules from theskin. Worn like a wristwatch, the device could provide six measurements per hourfor 13 hours.

But the GlucoWatch wasn't perfect. It was never intended as a stand-alone unit.Rather, it was to be used along with the conventional finger-stick method.

Evidently, many journalists overlooked this imperfection. In 2001, leads such asthe following appeared in newspapers across America:

"People with diabetes are about to get a science fiction-like way to measuretheir blood sugar painlessly."

This overstatement made it all the way to Hollywood. 'Panic Room', David Fincher's2002 thriller, centers on a woman and her diabetic daughter who lock themselvesin a secret room while burglars invade their New York mansion. As the two ladieshide, the GlucoWatch alerts the daughter to a dangerous drop in her blood sugar.

In response to the film, several people posted questions online, eager to knowmore about the mysterious movie prop: "Is the wristwatch real? Does is work? Ifso, what's the make and model? How much does it cost?"

To their disappointment, the GlucoWatch has since been proven to cause skinreddening, burning and blisters, and has been deemed unreliable to boot.

"The product is no longer manufactured, the company went bankrupt, and itsassets were eventually sold to…an insulin pump company that had abandonedits own glucose monitoring system a few years before," Smith explains in hisbook.

Considering the constant flood of announcements claiming the noninvasive problemhas been solved, it's no wonder Beyer is cynical about the breath analysis test.

She's not the only one. In a recent report to one of the world's leadingconsultants for diabetes-related product investment, Smith points out that thebreath test has actually been "discovered" several times in the past few years.

"So far, it has never panned out, but it makes a great story and grabsheadlines," he says.

In the University of California study, the research team analyzed exhaled gasprofiles of plasma glucose levels in 10 children with type 1 diabetes. While thefindings suggest that breath analysis has potential, Smith believes thismeasurement is not likely to be placed into a home monitoring device in the nearfuture.

"Because the gas is an indirect product of hyperglycemia, it is likely to have asignificant delay, possibly even longer than the 30 minutes they reported,"Smith writes in the report mentioned above. "The [results] need to be both fastand accurate, so this is not something I would invest in."

Smith says the premature announcements are often made to generate publicity andfinancial support for fledgling companies. Sadly, they also raise false hope inpeople who really need the technology.

This isn't to say that scientists aren't trying hard to develop a noninvasivetechnology that works. As of 2007, the home glucose testing industry representsa $6 billion-plus market worldwide. That figure would most likely increase iftesting were less painful and no bloodletting was involved.

"A noninvasive monitor has been regarded as the 'holy grail' of medical deviceventure capital opportunities for many years," says Smith. For these reasons andmore, "hope springs eternal in the hearts of scientists, entrepreneurs,opportunists and charlatans alike."

So, What's the Holdup?

Glucose is tricky, to say the least. First, with a normal glucose level, peoplehave only about a teaspoon of dissolved sugar in their bloodstream. Second, it'scolorless in most spectrums, making the molecule virtually impossible to seewith both the naked eye and the most advanced, light-detecting technology.

Third, the chemical structure of glucose is very similar to many other compoundswithin the human body. Because the body consists of many glucose-like molecules,most noninvasive monitoring techniques produce overlapping results.

As Smith illustrates time and again in his book, the many difficulties of themeasurement process – from calibration of the instruments to validation of theresults – have, so far, kept scientists and research companies from finding anoninvasive solution that works.

Yet another cause for concern, he says, is that many technologies have beenexplored after others have already proven they won't succeed. "Because there hasbeen no accounting of these multiply-investigated approaches, both investigatorsand investors have no guideposts to direct them."

Maybe something will come of the University of California study, and millions ofpeople with diabetes will finally enjoy some relief. But for now, at least,Beyer's not holding her breath.

Comments

comments

Diabetes Health Medical Disclaimer
The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images, and information, contained on or available through this website is for general information purposes only. Opinions expressed here are the opinions of writers, contributors, and commentators, and are not necessarily those of Diabetes Health. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking medical treatment because of something you have read on or accessed through this website.