8 ms·
The detectability of failure is an excellent point. Anybody who uses the hardware can confirm it's not 100%. I think your point helps me re-frame the glucagon a
by nahsra 3y ago
The detectability of failure is an excellent point. Anybody who uses the hardware can confirm it's not 100%. I think your point helps me re-frame the glucagon as more of an insurance backstop for when we accidentally hit the gas a little hard, rather than a permission slip to constantly be going too fast and constantly be slamming on the brakes.
Even in this framing, it still feels like an extraordinarily valuable addition, and relatively low risk. It's also, of course, more to add to the patient's maintenance, but might help them or their caregivers sleep at night.
- awaywethrow 3y ago> It's also, of course, more to add to the patient's maintenance I agree with all that you've said, and this point in particular is extremely important. It's also the reason I moved from a DIY system like the one mentioned here, to a commercial system, once the latter was available. There is simply less hardware and software to juggle with the commercial system. There are fewer knobs, bells, and whistles, meaning I might not be able to tweak things to be in as tight control as might be possible with a DIY system (though with risks!), but overall it's been "good enough" for me, and greatly reduces the cognitive burden of having T1D. My experience clearly doesn't match everyone's, but considering I'm typically someone who loves to tinker, and has plenty of T1D experience (engineer, 34 years with T1D), I'm sure I'm far from the only one that feels this way. My glycemic control isn't significantly better than it was when I did it via constant monitoring and mental math, but the cognitive and emotional burden is much lower.