Do-It-Yourself Diabetes Systems Bring Convenience—And Risk

Dana Lewis, pictured in Mount Vernon in 2017, worked with her engineer husband to design an artificial pancreas system to manage her type 1 diabetes.

(Courtesy of Lewis)


For years, a continuous glucose monitor would beep at night if Dana Lewis' blood sugar measured too high or too low. At age 14, she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune disease that destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas.

The FDA just issued its first warning to the DIY diabetic community, after one patient suffered an accidental insulin overdose.

But being a sound sleeper, the Seattle-based independent researcher, now 30, feared not waking up. That concerned her most when she would run, after which her glucose dropped overnight. Now, she rarely needs a rousing reminder to alert her to out-of-range blood glucose levels.

That's because Lewis and her husband, Scott Leibrand, a network engineer, developed an artificial pancreas system—an algorithm that calculates adjustments to insulin delivery based on data from the continuous glucose monitor and her insulin pump. When the monitor gives a reading, she no longer needs to press a button. The algorithm tells the pump how much insulin to release while she's sleeping.

"Most of the time, it's preventing the frequent occurrences of high or low blood sugars automatically," Lewis explains.

Like other do-it-yourself device innovations, home-designed artificial pancreas systems are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, so individual users assume any associated risks. Experts recommend that patients consult their doctor before adopting a new self-monitoring approach and to keep the clinician apprised of their progress.

DIY closed-loop systems can be uniquely challenging, according to the FDA. Patients may not fully comprehend how the devices are intended to work or they may fail to recognize the limitations. The systems have not been evaluated under quality control measures and pose risks of inappropriate dosing from the automated algorithm or potential incompatibility with a patient's other medications, says Stephanie Caccomo, an FDA spokeswoman.

Earlier this month, in fact, the FDA issued its first warning to the DIY diabetic community, which includes thousands of users, after one patient suffered an accidental insulin overdose.

Patients who built their own systems from scratch may be more well-versed in the operations, while those who are implementing unapproved designs created by others are less likely to be familiar with their intricacies, she says.

"Malfunctions or misuse of automated-insulin delivery systems can lead to acute complications of hypo- and hyperglycemia that may result in serious injury or death," Caccomo cautions. "FDA provides independent review of complex systems to assess the safety of these nontransparent devices, so that users do not have to be software/hardware designers to get the medical devices they need."

Only one hybrid closed-loop technology—the MiniMed 670G System from Minneapolis-based Medtronic—has been FDA-approved for type 1 use since September 2016. The term "hybrid" indicates that the system is not a fully automatic closed loop; it still requires minimal input from patients, including the need to enter mealtime carbohydrates, manage insulin dosage recommendations, and periodically calibrate the sensor.

Meanwhile, some tech-savvy people with type 1 diabetes have opted to design their own systems. About one-third of the DIY diabetes loopers are children whose parents have built them a closed system, according to Lewis' website.

Lewis began developing her system in 2014, well before Medtronic's device hit the market. "The choice to wait is not a luxury," she says, noting that "diabetes is inherently dangerous," whether an individual relies on a device to inject insulin or administers it with a syringe.

Hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while decreasing the risk of low blood sugar in patients of various ages with less than optimally controlled type 1 diabetes, according to a study published in The Lancet last October. The multi-center randomized trial, conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, spanned 12 weeks and included adults, adolescents, and children aged 6 years and older.

"We have compelling data attesting to the benefits of closed-loop systems," says Daniel Finan, research director at JDRF (formerly the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) in New York, a global organization funding the study.

Medtronic's system costs between $6,000 and $9,000. However, end-user pricing varies based on an individual's health plan. It is covered by most insurers, according to the device manufacturer.

To give users more choice, in 2017 JDRF launched the Open Protocol Automated Insulin Delivery Systems initiative to collaborate with the FDA and experts in the do-it-yourself arena. The organization hopes to "forge a new regulatory paradigm," Finan says.

As diabetes management becomes more user-controlled, there is a need for better coordination. "We've had insulin pumps for a very long time, but having sensors that can detect blood sugars in real time is still a very new phenomenon," says Leslie Lam, interim chief in the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at The Children's Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, N.Y.

"There's a lag in the integration of this technology," he adds. Innovators are indeed working to bring new products to market, "but on the consumer side, people want that to be here now instead of a year or two later."

The devices aren't foolproof, and mishaps can occur even with very accurate systems. For this reason, there is some reluctance to advocate for universal use in children with type 1 diabetes. Supervision by a parent, school nurse, and sometimes a coach would be a prudent precaution, Lam says.

People engage in "this work because they are either curious about it themselves or not getting the care they need from the health care system, or both."

Remaining aware of blood sugar levels and having a backup plan are essential. "People still need to know how to give injections the old-school way," he says.

To ensure readings are correct on Medtronic's device, users should check their blood sugar with traditional finger pricking at least five or six times per day—before every meal and whenever directed by the system, notes Elena Toschi, an endocrinologist and director of the Young Adult Clinic at Joslin Diabetes Center, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School.

"There can be pump failure and cross-talking failure," she cautions, urging patients not to stop being vigilant because they are using an automated device. "This is still something that can happen; it doesn't eliminate that."

While do-it-yourself devices help promote autonomy and offer convenience, the lack of clinical trial data makes it difficult for clinicians and patients to assess risks versus benefits, says Lisa Eckenwiler, an associate professor in the departments of philosophy and health administration and policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

"What are the responsibilities of physicians in that context to advise patients?" she questions. Some clinicians foresee the possibility that "down the road, if things go awry" with disease management, that could place them "in a moral quandary."

Whether it's controlling diabetes, obesity, heart disease or asthma, emerging technologies are having a major influence on individuals' abilities to stay on top of their health, says Camille Nebeker, an assistant professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and founder and director of its Research Center for Optimal Data Ethics.

People engage in "this work because they are either curious about it themselves or not getting the care they need from the health care system, or both," she says. In "citizen science communities," they may partner in participant-led research while gaining access to scientific and technical expertise. Others "may go it alone in solo self-tracking studies or developing do-it-yourself technologies," which raises concerns about whether they are carefully considering potential risks and weighing them against possible benefits.

Dana Lewis admits that "using do-it-yourself systems might not be for everyone. But the advances made in the do-it-yourself community show what's possible for future commercial developments, and give a lot of hope for improved quality of life for those of us living with type 1 diabetes."

Susan Kreimer
Susan Kreimer is a New York-based freelance journalist who has followed the landscape of health care since the late 1990s, initially as a staff reporter for major daily newspapers. She writes about breakthrough studies, personal health, and the business of clinical practice. Raised in the Chicago area, she holds a B.A. in Journalism/Mass Communication and French from the University of Iowa and an M.S. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Get our top stories twice a month
Follow us on

Recent immigration restrictions have left many foreign researchers' projects and careers in limbo—and some in jeopardy.

Unsplash

This article is part of the magazine, "The Future of Science In America: The Election Issue," co-published by LeapsMag, the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program, and GOOD.

When COVID-19 cases were surging in New York City in early spring, Chitra Mohan, a postdoctoral fellow at Weill Cornell, was overwhelmed with worry. But the pandemic was only part of her anxieties. Having come to the United States from India on a student visa that allowed her to work for a year after completing her degree, she had applied for a two-year extension, typically granted for those in STEM fields. But due to a clerical error—Mohan used an electronic signatureinstead of a handwritten one— her application was denied and she could no longerwork in the United States.

"I was put on unpaid leave and I lost my apartment and my health insurance—and that was in the middle of COVID!" she says.

Meanwhile her skills were very much needed in those unprecedented times. A molecular biologist studying how DNA can repair itself, Mohan was trained in reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or RT-PCR—a lab technique that detects pathogens and is used to diagnose COVID-19. Mohan wanted to volunteer at testing centers, but because she couldn't legally work in the U.S., she wasn't allowed to help either. She moved to her cousin's house, hired a lawyer, and tried to restore her work status.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
Lina Zeldovich
Lina Zeldovich has written about science, medicine and technology for Scientific American, Reader’s Digest, Mosaic Science and other publications. She’s an alumna of Columbia University School of Journalism and the author of the upcoming book, The Other Dark Matter: The Science and Business of Turning Waste into Wealth, from Chicago University Press. You can find her on http://linazeldovich.com/ and @linazeldovich.

The White House in Washington, D.C.

Unsplash

This article is part of the magazine, "The Future of Science In America: The Election Issue," co-published by LeapsMag, the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program, and GOOD.

We invited Nobel Prize, National Medal of Science, and Breakthrough Prize Laureates working in America to offer advice to the next President on how to prioritize science and medicine in the next four years. Almost universally, these 28 letters underscore the importance of government support for basic or fundamental research to fuel long-term solutions to challenges like infectious diseases, climate change, and environmental preservation.

Many of these scientists are immigrants to the United States and emphasize how they moved to this country for its educational and scientific opportunities, which recently have been threatened by changes in visa policies for students and researchers from overseas. Many respondents emphasize the importance of training opportunities for scientists from diverse backgrounds to ensure that America can continue to have one of the strongest, most creative scientific workforces in the world.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
Aaron F. Mertz
Aaron F. Mertz, Ph.D., is a biophysicist, science advocate, and the founding Director of the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program, launched in 2019 to help foster a diverse scientific workforce whose contributions extend beyond the laboratory and to generate greater public appreciation for science as a vital tool to address global challenges. He completed postdoctoral training in cell biology at Rockefeller University, a doctorate in physics at Yale University, a master’s degree in the history of science at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and a bachelor’s degree in physics at Washington University in St. Louis.