|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 13, 2016 1:44:19 GMT -5
The "AB" was supposed to be "BP"
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Apr 13, 2016 6:10:03 GMT -5
The "AB" was supposed to be "BP" I think you meant AB was supposed to be AP.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 13, 2016 8:29:52 GMT -5
The "AB" was supposed to be "BP" I think you meant AB was supposed to be AP. BP = bionic pancreas, still, very interesting presentation, I watched it again. I was trying to figure out how they stopped the pump for high glucose. It's usually very hard to not over shoot a goal, I'm thinking the wireless technology is the culprit. Thanks again !!
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 13, 2016 9:51:12 GMT -5
I think you meant AB was supposed to be AP. BP = bionic pancreas, still, very interesting presentation, I watched it again. I was trying to figure out how they stopped the pump for high glucose. It's usually very hard to not over shoot a goal, I'm thinking the wireless technology is the culprit. Thanks again !! Wireless is speed of light... that introduces negligible delay compared to the speed of response to the insulin. Well, ok there is some latency in the digital communications from the processors involved in wireless, but I'm sure it amounts to no more than tens of milliseconds which is still much faster than insulin action. Given that I work in wireless presently, I have to defend it
|
|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 13, 2016 10:36:39 GMT -5
At face value, I am impressed by the work whether you call it AP, APS, BP, or whatever. That was never my point. I'd love to see this stuff work very well in practice, and I'm glad that we can learn from this R&D. I think that it will work well for some, especially at night, but I expect it will be a small number of Type 1's in the grand scheme of things. That was my point. The business case is difficult when you compare the cost to Afrezza and others, not that I think it is an either or condition. Basically, I see Afrezza succeeding no matter what happens with AP's. In fact, Afrezza exists today because of earlier work with pumps and AP R&D. It's been a part of the broader AP R&D, and I suspect that Afrezza can benefit APS in many ways. It's just that I think getting the APS across the finish line is a bit more difficult than people were admitting. I do agree about APS being the natural integration of what's come before with pumps, CGM, diagnostic sensors, and analyzers/controllers. Integration only makes sense to follow; however, even Mr. Mann admitted that Afrezza may cannibalize his prior art. It's that kind of innovation that set him apart. I standby my predictions in good company.
Also, not to spread FUD, I will say that wireless concerns me due to CYBER. Better make sure the system is hacker proof [oxymoron] and interference proof. The worst thing that could happen to AP R&D is to have just ONE patient die. God I hope not. It would be like the Hindenburg was to Hydrogen R&D. Half of a century could be lost. Therefore, I suspect extreme caution to be taken before approval and mass distribution, like Afrezza. I wish them good luck.
Regarding a cure, I am an optimist, but opinions vary. I am well aware that the promise of a cure that never comes is very demoralizing so I would not hold my breath, but positivity could not hurt the pursuit. It leads to these interim solutions along the way. Not all of them will succeed.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Apr 13, 2016 13:47:37 GMT -5
At face value, I am impressed by the work whether you call it AP, APS, BP, or whatever. That was never my point. I'd love to see this stuff work very well in practice, and I'm glad that we can learn from this R&D. I think that it will work well for some, especially at night, but I expect it will be a small number of Type 1's in the grand scheme of things. That was my point. The business case is difficult when you compare the cost to Afrezza and others, not that I think it is an either or condition. Basically, I see Afrezza succeeding no matter what happens with AP's. In fact, Afrezza exists today because of earlier work with pumps and AP R&D. It's been a part of the broader AP R&D, and I suspect that Afrezza can benefit APS in many ways. It's just that I think getting the APS across the finish line is a bit more difficult than people were admitting. I do agree about APS being the natural integration of what's come before with pumps, CGM, diagnostic sensors, and analyzers/controllers. Integration only makes sense to follow; however, even Mr. Mann admitted that Afrezza may cannibalize his prior art. It's that kind of innovation that set him apart. I standby my predictions in good company. Also, not to spread FUD, I will say that wireless concerns me due to CYBER. Better make sure the system is hacker proof [oxymoron] and interference proof. The worst thing that could happen to AP R&D is to have just ONE patient die. God I hope not. It would be like the Hindenburg was to Hydrogen R&D. Half of a century could be lost. Therefore, I suspect extreme caution to be taken before approval and mass distribution, like Afrezza. I wish them good luck. Regarding a cure, I am an optimist, but opinions vary. I am well aware that the promise of a cure that never comes is very demoralizing so I would not hold my breath, but positivity could not hurt the pursuit. It leads to these interim solutions along the way. Not all of them will succeed. And I stand by my statement that Afrezza will be the most significant advancement in Diabetes for many years.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Apr 13, 2016 18:52:07 GMT -5
At face value, I am impressed by the work whether you call it AP, APS, BP, or whatever. That was never my point. I'd love to see this stuff work very well in practice, and I'm glad that we can learn from this R&D. I think that it will work well for some, especially at night, but I expect it will be a small number of Type 1's in the grand scheme of things. That was my point. The business case is difficult when you compare the cost to Afrezza and others, not that I think it is an either or condition. Basically, I see Afrezza succeeding no matter what happens with AP's. In fact, Afrezza exists today because of earlier work with pumps and AP R&D. It's been a part of the broader AP R&D, and I suspect that Afrezza can benefit APS in many ways. It's just that I think getting the APS across the finish line is a bit more difficult than people were admitting. I do agree about APS being the natural integration of what's come before with pumps, CGM, diagnostic sensors, and analyzers/controllers. Integration only makes sense to follow; however, even Mr. Mann admitted that Afrezza may cannibalize his prior art. It's that kind of innovation that set him apart. I standby my predictions in good company. Also, not to spread FUD, I will say that wireless concerns me due to CYBER. Better make sure the system is hacker proof [oxymoron] and interference proof. The worst thing that could happen to AP R&D is to have just ONE patient die. God I hope not. It would be like the Hindenburg was to Hydrogen R&D. Half of a century could be lost. Therefore, I suspect extreme caution to be taken before approval and mass distribution, like Afrezza. I wish them good luck. Regarding a cure, I am an optimist, but opinions vary. I am well aware that the promise of a cure that never comes is very demoralizing so I would not hold my breath, but positivity could not hurt the pursuit. It leads to these interim solutions along the way. Not all of them will succeed. A single point to point wireless link such as between a controller and a pump can be made very hacker proof using modern cryptographic authentication schemes. The vulnerabilities start arising when the controller provides links to more general computing devices such as a smartphone. That's not an inherent weakness of wireless, it's a weakness of computing platforms that were designed to enable easy connectivity with other devices. Physics would dictate that no wireless link can be totally immune to interference. Waveforms can be designed to provide more or less protection to interference, but there will always be some level of a jamming signal that would wipe out the intended signal's ability to be decoded. APS pump(s) would need to fail into a safe state if wireless signals are lost... or at least the safest state possible. You can't have a system where a pump would continue blindly injecting insulin if it loses contact with the controller... and that would NEVER be designed that way, nor approved by FDA if someone did design it.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Apr 14, 2016 7:44:48 GMT -5
If you look at the three biggest pump manufacturers in the US all the pumps can be controlled wirelessly and one of them is controlled exclusively wirelessly. The protocols they use are not very secure but are very short range. The pumps are capable of operating autonomously as you might leave the control at home and you cannot have a pump cutting out since it is delivering your basal as well as any bolus program that was started. The pumps are extremely precise and can deliver down to 0.1 unit (one reason they are so expensive).
The AP uses predictive algorithms to detect the start of a high and begins to deliver insulin slowly to preempt the rise. If the AP got it wrong it and levels start to drop it releases glucagon which promptly offsets the insulin (this is how your body works with insulin and glucagon released in parallel). Because it is only using small amount and increments it can catch things before they get out of hand. Like a CGM the AP monitors what it gets right and wrong and becomes progressively better trained to the person using it.
Latency isn't an issue because the components are either collocated as in the 670G and Vibe today, or on a short high bandwidth wireless link . Wireless security in the current pumps is horribly insecure as it is all ad hoc and proprietary while APs are better because they have to use standard secure protocols. The application is not latency dependent, and action does not need to happen for seconds. Even when a pump is delivering a normal dose, say 4 units, it will do that in small pulses over a period of anything up to minutes (pulsed delivery mimics how the body releases insulin and makes the liver more receptive).
|
|