Do-It-Yourself Diabetes Systems Bring Convenience—And Risk
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."
Scientists redesign bacteria to tackle the antibiotic resistance crisis
In 1945, almost two decades after Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, he warned that as antibiotics use grows, they may lose their efficiency. He was prescient—the first case of penicillin resistance was reported two years later. Back then, not many people paid attention to Fleming’s warning. After all, the “golden era” of the antibiotics age had just began. By the 1950s, three new antibiotics derived from soil bacteria — streptomycin, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline — could cure infectious diseases like tuberculosis, cholera, meningitis and typhoid fever, among others.
Today, these antibiotics and many of their successors developed through the 1980s are gradually losing their effectiveness. The extensive overuse and misuse of antibiotics led to the rise of drug resistance. The livestock sector buys around 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. every year. Farmers feed cows and chickens low doses of antibiotics to prevent infections and fatten up the animals, which eventually causes resistant bacterial strains to evolve. If manure from cattle is used on fields, the soil and vegetables can get contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Another major factor is doctors overprescribing antibiotics to humans, particularly in low-income countries. Between 2000 to 2018, the global rates of human antibiotic consumption shot up by 46 percent.
In recent years, researchers have been exploring a promising avenue: the use of synthetic biology to engineer new bacteria that may work better than antibiotics. The need continues to grow, as a Lancetstudy linked antibiotic resistance to over 1.27 million deaths worldwide in 2019, surpassing HIV/AIDS and malaria. The western sub-Saharan Africa region had the highest death rate (27.3 people per 100,000).
Researchers warn that if nothing changes, by 2050, antibiotic resistance could kill 10 million people annually.
To make it worse, our remedy pipelines are drying up. Out of the 18 biggest pharmaceutical companies, 15 abandoned antibiotic development by 2013. According to the AMR Action Fund, venture capital has remained indifferent towards biotech start-ups developing new antibiotics. In 2019, at least two antibiotic start-ups filed for bankruptcy. As of December 2020, there were 43 new antibiotics in clinical development. But because they are based on previously known molecules, scientists say they are inadequate for treating multidrug-resistant bacteria. Researchers warn that if nothing changes, by 2050, antibiotic resistance could kill 10 million people annually.
The rise of synthetic biology
To circumvent this dire future, scientists have been working on alternative solutions using synthetic biology tools, meaning genetically modifying good bacteria to fight the bad ones.
From the time life evolved on earth around 3.8 billion years ago, bacteria have engaged in biological warfare. They constantly strategize new methods to combat each other by synthesizing toxic proteins that kill competition.
For example, Escherichia coli produces bacteriocins or toxins to kill other strains of E.coli that attempt to colonize the same habitat. Microbes like E.coli (which are not all pathogenic) are also naturally present in the human microbiome. The human microbiome harbors up to 100 trillion symbiotic microbial cells. The majority of them are beneficial organisms residing in the gut at different compositions.
The chemicals that these “good bacteria” produce do not pose any health risks to us, but can be toxic to other bacteria, particularly to human pathogens. For the last three decades, scientists have been manipulating bacteria’s biological warfare tactics to our collective advantage.
In the late 1990s, researchers drew inspiration from electrical and computing engineering principles that involve constructing digital circuits to control devices. In certain ways, every cell in living organisms works like a tiny computer. The cell receives messages in the form of biochemical molecules that cling on to its surface. Those messages get processed within the cells through a series of complex molecular interactions.
Synthetic biologists can harness these living cells’ information processing skills and use them to construct genetic circuits that perform specific instructions—for example, secrete a toxin that kills pathogenic bacteria. “Any synthetic genetic circuit is merely a piece of information that hangs around in the bacteria’s cytoplasm,” explains José Rubén Morones-Ramírez, a professor at the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Mexico. Then the ribosome, which synthesizes proteins in the cell, processes that new information, making the compounds scientists want bacteria to make. “The genetic circuit remains separated from the living cell’s DNA,” Morones-Ramírez explains. When the engineered bacteria replicates, the genetic circuit doesn’t become part of its genome.
Highly intelligent by bacterial standards, some multidrug resistant V. cholerae strains can also “collaborate” with other intestinal bacterial species to gain advantage and take hold of the gut.
In 2000, Boston-based researchers constructed an E.coli with a genetic switch that toggled between turning genes on and off two. Later, they built some safety checks into their bacteria. “To prevent unintentional or deleterious consequences, in 2009, we built a safety switch in the engineered bacteria’s genetic circuit that gets triggered after it gets exposed to a pathogen," says James Collins, a professor of biological engineering at MIT and faculty member at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute. “After getting rid of the pathogen, the engineered bacteria is designed to switch off and leave the patient's body.”
Overuse and misuse of antibiotics causes resistant strains to evolve
Seek and destroy
As the field of synthetic biology developed, scientists began using engineered bacteria to tackle superbugs. They first focused on Vibrio cholerae, whichin the 19th and 20th century caused cholera pandemics in India, China, the Middle East, Europe, and Americas. Like many other bacteria, V. cholerae communicate with each other via quorum sensing, a process in which the microorganisms release different signaling molecules, to convey messages to its brethren. Highly intelligent by bacterial standards, some multidrug resistant V. choleraestrains can also “collaborate” with other intestinal bacterial species to gain advantage and take hold of the gut. When untreated, cholera has a mortality rate of 25 to 50 percent and outbreaks frequently occur in developing countries, especially during floods and droughts.
Sometimes, however, V. cholerae makes mistakes. In 2008, researchers at Cornell University observed that when quorum sensing V. cholerae accidentally released high concentrations of a signaling molecule called CAI-1, it had a counterproductive effect—the pathogen couldn’t colonize the gut.
So the group, led byJohn March, professor of biological and environmental engineering, developed a novel strategy to combat V. cholerae. They genetically engineered E.coli toeavesdrop on V. cholerae communication networks and equipped it with the ability to release the CAI-1 molecules. That interfered with V. cholerae progress.Two years later, the Cornell team showed that V. cholerae-infected mice treated with engineered E.coli had a 92 percent survival rate.
These findings inspired researchers to sic the good bacteria present in foods like yogurt and kimchi onto the drug-resistant ones.
Three years later in 2011, Singapore-based scientists engineered E.coli to detect and destroy Pseudomonas aeruginosa, an oftendrug-resistant pathogen that causes pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and sepsis. Once the genetically engineered E.coli found its target through its quorum sensing molecules, it then released a peptide, that could eradicate 99 percent of P. aeruginosa cells in a test-tube experiment. The team outlined their work in a Molecular Systems Biology study.
“At the time, we knew that we were entering new, uncharted territory,” says lead author Matthew Chang, an associate professor and synthetic biologist at the National University of Singapore and lead author of the study. “To date, we are still in the process of trying to understand how long these microbes stay in our bodies and how they might continue to evolve.”
More teams followed the same path. In a 2013 study, MIT researchers also genetically engineered E.coli to detect P. aeruginosa via the pathogen’s quorum-sensing molecules. It then destroyed the pathogen by secreting a lab-made toxin.
Probiotics that fight
A year later in 2014, a Nature study found that the abundance of Ruminococcus obeum, a probiotic bacteria naturally occurring in the human microbiome, interrupts and reduces V.cholerae’s colonization—by detecting the pathogen’s quorum sensing molecules. The natural accumulation of R. obeumin Bangladeshi adults helped them recover from cholera despite living in an area with frequent outbreaks.
Engineered bacteria can be trained to target pathogens when they are at their most vulnerable metabolic stage in the human gut. --José Rubén Morones-Ramírez.
These findings inspired researchers to sic the good bacteria present in foods like yogurt and kimchi onto the drug-resistant ones. So far, researchers have engineered various probiotic organisms to fight pathogenic bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus (leading cause of skin, tissue, bone, joint and blood infections) and Clostridium perfringens (which causes watery diarrhea) in test-tube and animal experiments. In 2020, Russian scientists engineered a probiotic called Pichia pastoris to produce an enzyme called lysostaphin that eradicated S. aureus in vitro. Another 2020 study from China used an engineered probiotic bacteria Lactobacilli casei as a vaccine to prevent C. perfringens infection in rabbits.
In a study last year, Ramírez’s group at the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, engineered E. coli to detect quorum-sensing molecules from Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA, a notorious superbug. The E. coli then releases a bacteriocin that kills MRSA. “An antibiotic is just a molecule that is not intelligent,” says Ramírez. “On the other hand, engineered bacteria can be trained to target pathogens when they are at their most vulnerable metabolic stage in the human gut.”
Collins and Timothy Lu, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT, found that engineered E. coli can help treat other conditions—such as phenylketonuria, a rare metabolic disorder, that causes the build-up of an amino acid phenylalanine. Their start-up Synlogic aims to commercialize the technology, and has completed a phase 2 clinical trial.
Circumventing the challenges
The bacteria-engineering technique is not without pitfalls. One major challenge is that beneficial gut bacteria produce their own quorum-sensing molecules that can be similar to those that pathogens secrete. If an engineered bacteria’s biosensor is not specific enough, it will be ineffective.
Another concern is whether engineered bacteria might mutate after entering the gut. “As with any technology, there are risks where bad actors could have the capability to engineer a microbe to act quite nastily,” says Collins of MIT. But Collins and Ramírez both insist that the chances of the engineered bacteria mutating on its own are virtually non-existent. “It is extremely unlikely for the engineered bacteria to mutate,” Ramírez says. “Coaxing a living cell to do anything on command is immensely challenging. Usually, the greater risk is that the engineered bacteria entirely lose its functionality.”
However, the biggest challenge is bringing the curative bacteria to consumers. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t interested in antibiotics or their alternatives because it’s less profitable than developing new medicines for non-infectious diseases. Unlike the more chronic conditions like diabetes or cancer that require long-term medications, infectious diseases are usually treated much quicker. Running clinical trials are expensive and antibiotic-alternatives aren’t lucrative enough.
“Unfortunately, new medications for antibiotic resistant infections have been pushed to the bottom of the field,” says Lu of MIT. “It's not because the technology does not work. This is more of a market issue. Because clinical trials cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the only solution is that governments will need to fund them.” Lu stresses that societies must lobby to change how the modern healthcare industry works. “The whole world needs better treatments for antibiotic resistance.”
Meet Dr. Renee Wegrzyn, the first Director of President Biden's new health agency, ARPA-H
In today’s podcast episode, I talk with Renee Wegrzyn, appointed by President Biden as the first director of a health agency created last year, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, or ARPA-H. It’s inspired by DARPA, the agency that develops innovations for the Defense department and has been credited with hatching world-changing technologies such as ARPANET, which became the internet.
Time will tell if ARPA-H will lead to similar achievements in the realm of health. That’s what President Biden and Congress expect in return for funding ARPA-H at 2.5 billion dollars over three years.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
How will the agency figure out which projects to take on, especially with so many patient advocates for different diseases demanding moonshot funding for rapid progress?
I talked with Dr. Wegrzyn about the opportunities and challenges, what lessons ARPA-H is borrowing from Operation Warp Speed, how she decided on the first ARPA-H project that was announced recently, why a separate agency was needed instead of reforming HHS and the National Institutes of Health to be better at innovation, and how ARPA-H will make progress on disease prevention in addition to treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes, among many other health priorities.
Dr. Wegrzyn’s resume leaves no doubt of her suitability for this role. She was a program manager at DARPA where she focused on applying gene editing and synthetic biology to the goal of improving biosecurity. For her work there, she received the Superior Public Service Medal and, in case that wasn’t enough ARPA experience, she also worked at another ARPA that leads advanced projects in intelligence, called I-ARPA. Before that, she ran technical teams in the private sector working on gene therapies and disease diagnostics, among other areas. She has been a vice president of business development at Gingko Bioworks and headed innovation at Concentric by Gingko. Her training and education includes a PhD and undergraduate degree in applied biology from the Georgia Institute of Technology and she did her postdoc as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow in Heidelberg, Germany.
Dr. Wegrzyn told me that she’s “in the hot seat.” The pressure is on for ARPA-H especially after the need and potential for health innovation was spot lit by the pandemic and the unprecedented speed of vaccine development. We'll soon find out if ARPA-H can produce gamechangers in health that are equivalent to DARPA’s creation of the internet.
ARPA-H - https://arpa-h.gov/
Dr. Wegrzyn profile - https://arpa-h.gov/people/renee-wegrzyn/
Dr. Wegrzyn Twitter - https://twitter.com/rwegrzyn?lang=en
President Biden Announces Dr. Wegrzyn's appointment - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statement...
Leaps.org coverage of ARPA-H - https://leaps.org/arpa/
ARPA-H program for joints to heal themselves - https://arpa-h.gov/news/nitro/ -
ARPA-H virtual talent search - https://arpa-h.gov/news/aco-talent-search/
Dr. Renee Wegrzyn was appointed director of ARPA-H last October.
Matt Fuchs is the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org and Making Sense of Science. He is also a contributing reporter to the Washington Post and has written for the New York Times, Time Magazine, WIRED and the Washington Post Magazine, among other outlets. Follow him @fuchswriter.