External Physical and Technical Influences on Medical Devices for Diabetes Therapy

People With Diabetes Using Insulin Flying Across Multiple Time Zones: Limitations and Opportunities for Diabetes Technologies

Increasingly, people with diabetes (PWD) are using wearable and other devices to support self-management. During air travel, there are 4 stakeholders involved in maximizing the safety of wireless devices for diabetes care used in flight: (1) manufacturers of the devices, (2) airlines, (3) the Transportation Security Administration, and (4) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These stakeholders have all developed technologies and policies that assist PWD who prepare for and take appropriate actions during long-haul flights. This article discusses the performance and use of 6 classes of specific wireless diabetes devices during an airplane flight, including the following: (1) blood glucose monitors, (2) continuous glucose monitors, (3) insulin pumps, (4) smart pens for dosing insulin injections, (5) advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and (6) spinal cord stimulators for painful diabetic neuropathy. Through the policies and safeguards of the 4 stakeholders and the proper self-care measures that insulin-using PWD can take, it is possible to maintain safe glycemic levels on flights across multiple time zones.

Impact of X-Ray Exposure From Computed Tomography on Wearable Insulin Delivery Devices

BACKGROUND

To investigate the impact of radiation exposure from a computed tomography (CT) scanner on the functional integrity of a wearable insulin delivery system.

METHODS

A total of 160 Omnipods and four personal diabetes managers (PDMs) were evenly divided into four groups: (1) control group (no radiation exposure), (2) typical radiation exposure group, (3) 4× typical radiation exposure group, and (4) scatter radiation group. Pods were attached to an anthropomorphic torso phantom on the abdomen (direct irradiation) or shoulder (scatter radiation) region. A third-generation dual-source CT scanner was used to scan the pods using either a typical exposure (used for routine CT abdominal study of a median size patient) or 4× typical exposure. A manufacturer-recommended 20-step functionality test was performed for all 160 Omnipods.

RESULTS

The radiation dose (measured in volume CT Dose index) was 16 mGy for a typical exposure, and 64 mGy for 4× typical exposure. The scatter radiation is less than 0.1 mGy. All Pods passed the functionality test except one pod in the scatter radiation group, which sounded an alarm due to occlusion. The blockage to the fluid was due to a kink in the soft cannula, a mechanical issue not caused by the radiation exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests X-ray exposure levels used in radiological imaging procedures do not negatively impact the functional integrity of Omnipods. This finding may support the potential for the manufacturer to remove the warning that patients should remove the Pod for X-ray imaging procedures, which will have a huge impact on patient care.