Painless Skin Patch to Respond to Sugar Management for Type 2 Diabetes

The skin patch should be ready for humans within the next few years.

Researchers have devised a biochemically formulated patch of dissolvable microneedles for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The biochemical formula of mineralized compounds in the patch responds to blood chemistry to manage glucose automatically. In a proof-of-concept study performed with mice, the researchers showed that the chemicals interact in the bloodstream to regulate blood sugar for days at a time.

For millions of people with type 2 diabetes, ongoing vigilance over the amount of sugar, or glucose, in their blood is the key to health. A finger prick before mealtimes and maybe an insulin injection is an uncomfortable but necessary routine.

Researchers with NIH’s National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) have devised an innovative biochemical formula of mineralized compounds that interacts in the bloodstream to regulate blood sugar for days at a time. In a proof-of-concept study performed with mice, the researchers showed that the biochemically formulated patch of dissolvable microneedles can respond to blood chemistry to manage glucose automatically.

“This experimental approach could be a way to take advantage of the fact that persons with type 2 diabetes can still produce some insulin,” said Richard Leapman, Ph.D., NIBIB scientific director. “A weekly microneedle patch application would also be less complicated and painful than routines that require frequent blood testing.”

Insulin is a hormone made in the pancreas and secreted into the bloodstream to regulate glucose in response to food intake. It is needed to move glucose from the bloodstream into cells where the sugar can be converted to energy or stored. In type 1 diabetes, usually diagnosed in children and young adults, the body does not make insulin at all. Type 2 diabetes, which can be diagnosed at any age but more commonly as an adult, progressively lessens the body’s ability to make or use insulin. Untreated, diabetes can result in both vascular and nerve damage throughout the body, with debilitating impacts on the eyes, feet, kidneys, and heart.

Global incidence of all types of diabetes is about 285 million people, of which 90 percent have type 2 diabetes. Many require insulin therapy that is usually given by injection just under the skin in amounts that are calculated according to the deficit in naturally generated insulin in the blood. Insulin therapy is not managed well in half of all cases.

Atrocious Consequences of Pharmaceutical Price Gouging

The greed of the pharmaceutical industry has caused far too much suffering already, and it is long past time that the industry payed a high price of its own for the damage it has caused.

Particular important to highlight again is the part where — in the wealthiest country in world history — “Shane Patrick Boyle, a founder of Zine Fest Houston, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short.” What kind of society can that sentence even be written in?

Last year The New York Times published an op-ed urging the break up of the “insulin racket.” But rather than break it up, Trump has nominated one of its architects, Alex Azar, for secretary of Health and Human Services.

From 2007 to 2017, Azar worked for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. While he was a senior VP, Lilly paid a record $1.415 billion to settle a case on its off-label promotion of the antipsychotic Zyprexa. Rising up the ranks, Azar became president of Lilly USA, the largest division of Eli Lilly, in 2012, a position he held until resigning in January of this year.

During Azar’s tenure, Eli Lilly raised the prices on its insulins in the United States by 20.8 percent in 2014, 16.9 percent in 2015, and 7.5 percent in 2016. Eli Lilly’s biggest seller, Humalog insulin, is now off-patent. But rather than becoming cheaper, Humalog costs more now than when it first came to market in 1996. When Azar started working at Eli Lilly in June 2007, the list price for a vial of Humalog was $74. When he quit in January 2017, it was $269.

At T1International we asked people with type 1 diabetes around the world how much they paid each month to stay alive. The United States topped every country, spending on average $571.69 per month on diabetes costs. Even with insurance, some Americans are spending around half their income on insulin and other supplies.

In fact, price gouging from Eli Lilly and other insulin manufacturers has already had deadly consequences. Shane Patrick Boyle, a founder of Zine Fest Houston, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parent’s insurance coverage. The sad fact is more people would be alive today if insulin was affordable for all Americans.

Contrary to pharma propaganda, insulin is neither “new” nor “innovative.” It was developed in Toronto in 1921. The discoverers turned down the chance to create for-profit clinics. Instead, they licensed their creation for $1 (Canadian) a piece. Their recorded reason for doing this was to make sure insulin would be available for all who needed it. Eli Lilly’s was tasked with manufacturing insulin for North America. There was an understanding insulin would be sold at a reasonable price until there was a cure for diabetes.

What difference a century makes! Eli Lilly is currently under investigation by multiple state attorneys general for price fixing. It is also named in a class-action lawsuit that alleges that it colluded with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi to keep the prices in the US insulin market rising. These “Big 3” insulin makers control over 90 percent of the global market and maintain their lock on it in many ways. One is “pay-for-delay schemes,” like when Sanofi paid Eli Lilly to delay the launch of an insulin similar to its Lantus brand. Another is to sue potential competitors for intellectual property infringement, such as when Merck attempted to enter the insulin market in 2016. The companies also funnel money into patient-advocacy groups, both big and small. This might explain the inaction or even outright opposition of these groups on measures that may rein in prices.