Other implantable devices can become bogged down by tissue that grows around them. But the researchers found that even with the extra layer of tissue around it, drug absorption via the chip seemed to work just fine.
The researchers also found that dosing accuracy was actually better than standard injection, says Robert Langer who, with fellow study co-author Michael Cima, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, first started developing the concept of an implantable wireless microchip in the 1990s. And it might not end up being that much more expensive, Farra says.
Farra's group aims to provide the medication-filled chip for a price that will still cost no more, including implant and removal surgery, than the $10,000 to $12,000 that a year's worth of teriparatide injections currently cost. The approach also vastly increases compliance. The current small study did not measure whether or not women with the implant had fewer bone breaks than people who were in charge of their injections. But if future studies find that by increasing compliance patients with the chip also decrease their risk of breaking a bone, then it could also help decrease medical care costs in the long run. With an aging population, the cost of osteoporotic fractures is estimated to top $20 billion by 2015 in the U.S. alone.
External approval for internal dosing
The device still needs perfecting. The eighth patient in the study had a malfunctioning chip that did not release any medication, which might lead some to worry about potential for accidental release of excessive dosages. But with the design of each well's membrane and activation mechanism, Langer says, "I don't think there are big safety concerns."
Other wireless medical devices have raised eyebrows for their potential susceptibility to signal interference or even hacking. Because the device uses the MICS frequency, it is likely to face less interference than if it were on busier parts of the band. Also, a unique ID number is required to establish connection with each individual chip, decreasing the ease of hacking.
Farra and his colleagues have built an implant—the same size as the one in the study—that contains 365 doses, which, they suggest, could provide daily dosing for a year or possibly even every-other-day doses for two years.
Farra suggests that more development and trials could yield a yearlong chip ready for FDA approval in four years.
John Watson, a professor of bioengineering at the University of California, San Diego, thinks this estimate is a tad optimistic. He has been helping to find ways to move technology from the drawing board to clinical use more quickly. But, he says, for a device like this, researchers will need to tweak the technology, recruit more patients, run a one- or two-year-long study and complete another year or two of follow-up—plus time to review the data and seek approval from the FDA. "That's very doable," says Watson, who wrote an editorial about the new device that was also published online Thursday in Science Translational Medicine. It is just a matter of doing it, he says.
Chip potential
If the chip proves successful in larger and longer trials, it might also be adapted for treating more acute conditions, such as delivering drugs for a month or two after a heart attack. The chip could also be filled with a mix of drugs delved out in dosages specifically tailored to a patient's needs, Farra notes. For instance, if a patient is responding well to medication, a doctor could dial back the release frequency. Or if a patient needs to be slowly weaned off or onto a drug, there could be smaller doses preset in the chip.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentA chip placed in some part of our body can serve to identify us better than any driver's license, passport or other typs of document, but besides the very low, but sure dangers of implanting it, it would be impossible avoiding that somebody gets a severe adverse effect from having a chip implanted, this would mean an absolute and irreversible loss of privacy, this kind of devices can track your geographical location in a 24 h a day, 365 days a year basis, and could be used for example, to link directly an expense you make in a cocktail bar to your bank account, without having to make nothing more than crossing a door. This can be also extremely useful in controlling terrorists, but in some way would put us in a situation too close to the one of cattle, dogs, cats and other pets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop drinking milk. Milk sucks calcium out of the bones . Causing weak bones and heart disease
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, yes, your kid's playing with a radio-controlled race car and also gives you 365 doses of toxic media, killing you in a very horrible manner. ObamacarenotforU in action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes a microchip to do this? Why not just something like a time-release capsule, an slow-dissolving, inert material inclosing droplets of medication which are released as the material dissolves?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how well a system like this could be implemented to dispense insulin for diabetics? With the rate of diabetes on the increase in every sense this would be a real "Science" send.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCHECK OUT THIS RESEARCH GROUP OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ... RESEARCH YOU COULD HELP WITH IF YOU HAVE A COMPUTER ROSETTA@HOME
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImplant a microchip in my body that contains multiple doses of medication? Not on your life, pal. First, I would not trust them to do or get it right - as 'they' erred on my oral medication more than thrice; and I shudder to think of the potential ramifications that would occur if they botch something that's inside one's body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly,frequency interference is quite probable;
considering the plethora of electronic devices that
would be in the path between the "Remote Doctor" and the Microchip-implanted Patient. How does this grab ya:at every entrance to the medical facility that I patronize for medical care, there is a huge sign that instructs everyone to turn off their cellular phones prior to entering the building, to avoid the possibility of interference! Need I say more?
Thirdly; of paramount importance, is the compatibility/toxic factor of electronics with the Human body. Thinking along the lines of "electronic materials as waste" - electronic discards are categorized as "toxic waste". And, I'm not just talking about monitors - I'm referring to electronic circuit boards, electronic circuitry in general - I know for a fact that it is considered and labeled "toxic waste." So, the correlation I make here, is that something that will ultimately be categorized as toxic waste when it is no longer useful for the function it performs, is not something that I would evaluate as being suitable for implantation inside my own body! What are they thinking?
I find it absolutely incredible that the medical field deemed it appropriate or necessary that because "people can't remember to take their own medicine", that the answer is this microchip. WTF??!!! What an incredible expense and development endeavor - just because people can't remember to take their medicine, as scheduled? Now, here's an idea for those forgetful ones: perhaps they could set the "Alarm" feature in their cellular phone to remind them to take it on time. What a concept, huh?! I say the more you allow people to slack off and cater to them, the further the decline. If one has a medical condition that requires daily or multiple-times daily medication,then it is their own responsibility to care enough about participating in maintaining the regimen necessary for their own betterment.
Jgrosay (comment#1) might be on the right track - and this "for your own good" reason for implanting a chip, may be a smoke screen for a more insidious agenda.
How likely,on a scale of 0-10, would I allow one to enter my body? Zip,Zero,Zilch,Nada!