Researchers develop tattoo ink capable of monitoring health by changing color
news.harvard.edu
news.harvard.edu
So far as I know it still hasn't been approved by the FDA, and I don't know whether the developers are even still trying to get it approved.
Google also developed a sensor incorporated into a contact lens that provided non-invasive, continuous glucose monitoring at about the same time. Same result; not approved (that I know of) and no indication that it ever will be.
Also, if you look at the approval process costs are largely focused on how studies are done not the minimum requirements for data collection.
PS: Remember, a very well funded group has a huge incentive to reduce costs in this area.
And yes I read what you linked it over states it's case and has very poor support.
Wasn't that one of the FDA's big victories? Perhaps you mean the FDA is far to powerful because of that win.
I can see some argument for abandoning the efficacy requirement, and only going with "safe" but so few drugs actually do anything - isn't it something like a 95% attrition rate? only 1 in 50 actually have a measurable effect?
Maybe the bar is too high. Seems like the bigger challenge, and far far greater win is just making testing cheaper.
depends who you ask.
Milton Friedman used the thalidomide reaction as a case-book example of government meddling in the private sector where it needn't be, causing vast delay in possible new therapeutics, which basically created an unquantifiable loss of value due to us being unaware of "what could have been without bureaucratic delay".
Friedman believed that if a company does sufficient harm to a population that the negative market signal will eventually destroy the 'bad-actor' company, without the need for anything like the FDA and the delays it imposes[0]
I don't know whether or not he's right.
(I kid, I kid...)
The current state of the technology is probably best described as "finicky": the sensor skin patch needs to be replaced every week or two, at which point it's much less accurate for a couple days. It also needs calibration inputs from a finger prick at least every 12 hours. In general if the sensor is reporting a high or low condition her first action is to double-check with a finger prick. More often than not the sensor is simply wrong.
With all that said, it's better to have the sensor than not. She is able to use an app [0] to track her glucose levels over both the short term and long term trends. She's been able to use that data to make dietary decisions which allow her to keep her glucose within range and she had very good A1c levels (5.4, vs a goal of "under 7" for many diabetics) at her last checkup.
I think the long term data collection ability means that a more connected sensor (as opposed to the linked tattoo) will continue to be beneficial for diabetics. The next steps in the useful technological development will be to integrate with insulin pumps (this technology is already in trials) and to integrate with diet tracking data e.g. from MyFitnessPal to assist with meal decisions.
Thanks for the input from your wife's experience