Newly-defined Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (CKM) means physicians will be in close collaboration with clinical laboratories to make accurate diagnoses
In a presidential advisory, the AHA defines a newly described systemic health disorder called Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (CKM). The syndrome “is a systemic disorder characterized by pathophysiological interactions among metabolic risk factors, CKD (chronic kidney disease), and the cardiovascular system leading to multi-organ failure and a high rate of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.”
A CKM diagnosis, which is meant to identify patients who are at high risk of dying from heart disease, is based on a combination of risk factors, including:
weight problems,
issues with blood pressure, cholesterol, and/or blood sugar,
reduced kidney function.
CKM is a new term and doctors will be ordering medical laboratory tests associated with diagnosing patients with multiple symptoms to see if they match this diagnosis. Thus, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists will want to follow the adoption/implementation of this new recommendation.
“The advisory addresses the connections among these conditions with a particular focus on identifying people at early stages of CKM syndrome,” said Chiadi Ndumele, MD, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University and one of the authors of the AHA paper, in a news release. “Screening for kidney and metabolic disease will help us start protective therapies earlier to most effectively prevent heart disease and best manage existing heart disease.” Clinical laboratories will play a key role in those screenings and in diagnosis of the new syndrome. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins University.)
Stages of CKM Syndrome
In its presidential advisory, the AHA wrote, “Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic (CKM) syndrome is defined as a health disorder attributable to connections among obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cardiovascular disease (CVD), including heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral artery disease. CKM syndrome includes those at risk for CVD and those with existing CVD.”
The five stages of CKM syndrome, which the AHA provided to give a framework for patients to work towards regression of the syndrome, are:
Stage 0: No CKM risk factors. Individuals should be screened every three to five years for blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, and for maintaining a healthy body weight.
Stage 1: Excess body fat and/or an unhealthy distribution of body fat, such as abdominal obesity, and/or impaired glucose tolerance or prediabetes. Patients have risk factors such as weight problems or prediabetes and are encouraged to make healthy lifestyle changes and try to lose at least 5% of their body weight.
Stage 2: Metabolic risk factors and kidney disease. Includes people who already have Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high triglyceride levels, and/or kidney disease. Medications that target kidney function, lower blood sugar, and which help with weight loss should be considered at this stage to prevent diseases of the heart and blood vessels or kidney failure.
Stage 3: Early cardiovascular disease without symptoms in people with metabolic risk factors or kidney disease or those at high predicted risk for cardiovascular disease. People show signs of disease in their arteries, or have heart function issues, or may have already had a stroke or heart attack or have kidney or heart failure. Medication may also be needed at this stage.
Stage 4: Symptomatic cardiovascular disease in people with excess body fat, metabolic risk factors or kidney disease. In this stage, people are categorized as with or without having kidney failure. May also have already had a heart attack, stroke or heart failure, or cardiovascular conditions such as peripheral artery disease or atrial fibrillation.
“We now have several therapies that prevent both worsening kidney disease and heart disease,” said Chiadi Ndumele, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University and one of the authors of the Circulation paper, in a news release. “The advisory provides guidance for healthcare professionals about how and when to use those therapies, and for the medical community and general public about the best ways to prevent and manage CKM syndrome.”
According to an AHA 2023 Statistical Update, one in three adults in the US have three or more risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, or kidney disease. While CKM affects nearly every major organ in the body, it has the biggest impact on the cardiovascular system where it can affect the blood vessels, heart muscle function, the rate of fatty buildup in the arteries, electrical impulses in the heart and more.
“There is a need for fundamental changes in how we educate healthcare professionals and the public, how we organize care and how we reimburse care related to CKM syndrome,” Ndumele noted. “Key partnerships among stakeholders are needed to improve access to therapies, to support new care models, and to make it easier for people from diverse communities and circumstances to live healthier lifestyles and to achieve ideal cardiovascular health.”
New AHA Risk Calculator
In November, the AHA announced PREVENT (Predicting risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs), a tool that doctors can use to assess a person’s risk for heart attack, stroke, and heart failure. The new risk calculator, which incorporates CKM, allows physicians to evaluate younger people as well, and examine their long-term risks for cardiovascular issues.
Doctors can use PREVENT to assess people ages 30 to 79 and predict risk for heart attack, stroke, or heart failure over 10 to 30 years.
“Longer-term estimates are important because short-term or 10-year risk in most young adults is still going to be low. We wanted to think more broadly and apply a life-course perspective,” Khan said. “Providing information on 30-year risk may reveal earlier opportunities for intervention and prevention efforts in younger people.”
According to CDC data, about 695,000 people died of heart disease in the US in 2021. That equates to one in every five deaths. Clinical pathologists will need to understand the AHA recommendations and how doctors will be ordering clinical laboratory tests to determine if a patient has CKM. Then, labs will play a role in helping doctors monitor patients to optimize health and prevent acute episodes that put patients in the hospital.
If validated, study findings may result in new biomarkers for clinical laboratory cholesterol tests and for diagnosing dementia
Researchers continue to find new associations between biomarkers commonly tested by clinical laboratories and certain health conditions and diseases. One recent example comes from research conducted by the University of California San Francisco. The UCSF study connected cholesterol biomarkers generally used for managing cardiovascular disease with an increased risk for dementia as well.
The researchers found that both high and low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL)—often referred to as “good” cholesterol—was associated with dementia in older adults, according to a news release from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).
UCSF’s large, longitudinal study incorporated data from 184,367 people in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan. How the findings may alter cholesterol biomarker use in future diagnostics has not been determined.
“The elevation in dementia risk with both high and low levels of HDL cholesterol was unexpected, but these increases are small, and their clinical significance is uncertain,” said epidemiologist Maria Glymour, ScD (above), study author and Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF School of Medicine, in a news release. This is another example of how researchers are associating common biomarkers tested regularly by clinical laboratories with additional health conditions and disease states. (Photo copyright: University of California San Francisco.)
HDL Levels Link to Dementia Risk
The UCSF researchers used cholesterol measurements and health behavior questions as they tracked Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan members who were at least 55 years old between 2002 and 2007, and who did not have dementia at the time of the study’s launch.
The researchers then followed up with the study participants through December 2020 to find out if they had developed dementia, Medical News Today reported.
“Previous studies on this topic have been inconclusive, and this study is especially informative because of the large number of participants and long follow-up,” said epidemiologist Maria Glymour, ScD, study author and Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at UCSF School of Medicine, in the AAN news release. “This information allowed us to study the links with dementia across the range of cholesterol levels and achieve precise estimates even for people with cholesterol levels that are quite high or quite low.”
According to HealthDay, UCSF’s study findings included the following:
More than 25,000 people developed dementia over about nine years. They were divided into five groups.
53.7 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) was the average HDL cholesterol level, amid an optimal range of above 40 mg/dL for men and above 50 mg/dL for women.
A 15% rate of dementia was found in participants with HDL of 65 mg/dL or above.
A 7% rate of dementia was found in participants with HDL of 11 mg/dL to 41 mg/dL.
“We found a U-shaped relationship between HDL and dementia risk, such that people with either lower or higher HDL had a slightly elevated risk of dementia,” Erin Ferguson, PhD student of Epidemiology at UCSF, the study’s lead study author, told Medical News Today.
What about LDL?
The UCSF researchers found no correlation between low-density lipoprotein (LDL)—often referred to as “bad” cholesterol”—and increased risk for dementia. But the risk did increase slightly when use of statin lipid-lowering medications were included in the analysis.
“Higher LDL was not associated with dementia risk overall, but statin use qualitatively modified the association. Higher LDL was associated with a slightly greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease-related dementia for statin users,” the researchers wrote in Neurology.
“We found no association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk in the overall study cohort. Our results add to evidence that HDL cholesterol has similarly complex associations with dementia as with heart disease and cancer,” Glymour noted in the AAN news release.
Australian Study also Links High HDL to Dementia
A separate study from Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, found that “abnormally high levels” of HDL was also associated with increased risk for dementia, according to a Monash news release.
The Monash study—which was part of the ASPREE (ASPpirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial of people taking daily aspirin—involved 16,703 Australians and 2,411 Americans during the years 2010 to 2014. The researchers found:
850 participants had developed dementia over about six years.
A 27% increased risk of dementia among people with HDL above 80 mg/dL and a 42% higher dementia risk for people 75 years and older with high HDL levels.
These findings, Newsweek pointed out, do not necessarily mean that high levels of HDL cause dementia.
“There might be additional factors that affect both these findings, such as a genetic link that we are currently unaware of,” Andrew Doig, PhD, Professor, Division of Neuroscience at University of Manchester, told Newsweek. Doig was not involved in the in the Monash University research.
Follow-up research could explore the possibility of diagnosing dementia earlier using blood tests and new biomarkers, Newsweek noted.
Cholesterol Lab Test Results of Value to Clinical Labs
If further studies validate new biomarkers for testing and diagnosis, a medical laboratory’s longitudinal record of cholesterol test results over many years may be useful in identifying people with an increased risk for dementia.
Clinical pathologists and laboratory managers will want to stay tuned as additional study insights and findings are validated and published. Existing laboratory testing reference ranges may need to be revised as well.
As well, the findings of this UCSF research demonstrate that, in this age of information, there will be plenty of opportunities for clinical lab scientists and pathologists to take their labs’ patient data and combine it with other sets of data. Digital tools like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning would then be used to assess that large pool of data and produce clinically actionable insights. In turn, that positions labs to add more value and be paid for that value.
Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
Research results call into question the safety and dependability of using artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis, a development that should be watched by clinical laboratory scientists
ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that returns answers to written prompts, has been tested and found wanting by researchers at the University of Florida College of Medicine (UF Health) who looked into how well it could answer typical patient questions on urology. Not good enough according to the researchers who conducted the study.
AI is quickly becoming a powerful new tool in diagnosis and medical research. Some digital pathologists and radiologists use it for data analysis and to speed up diagnostic modality readings. It’s even been said that AI will improve how physicians treat disease. But with all new discoveries there comes controversy, and that’s certainly the case with AI in healthcare.
Many voices in opposition to AI’s use in clinical medicine claim the technology is too new and cannot be trusted with patients’ health. Now, UF Health’s study seems to have confirmed that belief—at least with ChatGPT.
The study revealed that answers ChatGPT provided “fell short of the standard expected of physicians,” according to a UF Health new release, which called ChatGPT’s answers “flawed.”
The questions posed were considered to be common medical questions that patients would ask during a visit to a urologist.
The researchers believes their study is the first of its kind to focus on AI and the urology specialty and which “highlights the risk of asking AI engines for medical information even as they grow in accuracy and conversational ability,” UF Health noted in the news release.
“I am not discouraging people from using chatbots,” said Russell S. Terry, MD (above), an assistant professor in the UF College of Medicine’s department of urology and the study’s senior author, in a UF Health news release. “But don’t treat what you see as the final answer. Chatbots are not a substitute for a doctor.” Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to monitor how developers improve the performance of chatbots and other applications using artificial intelligence. (Photo copyright: University of Florida.)
UF Health ChatGPT Study Details
UF Health’s study featured 13 of the most queried topics from patients to their urologists during office visits. The researchers asked ChatGPT each question three times “since ChatGPT can formulate different answers to identical queries,” they noted in the news release.
The urological conditions the questions covered included:
The researchers then “evaluated the answers based on guidelines produced by the three leading professional groups for urologists in the United States, Canada, and Europe, including the American Urological Association (URA). Five UF Health urologists independently assessed the appropriateness of the chatbot’s answers using standardized methods,” UF Health noted.
Notable was that many of the results were inaccurate. According to UF Health, only 60% of responses were deemed appropriate from the 39 evaluated responses. Outside of those results, the researchers noted in their Urology paper, “[ChatGPT] misinterprets clinical care guidelines, dismisses important contextual information, conceals its sources, and provides inappropriate references.”
When asked, for the most part ChatGPT was not able to accurately provide the sources it referenced for its answers. Apparently, the chatbot was not programmed to provide such sources, the UF Health news release stated.
“It provided sources that were either completely made up or completely irrelevant,” Terry noted in the new release. “Transparency is important so patients can assess what they’re being told.”
Further, “Only 7 (54%) of 13 topics and 21 (54%) of 39 responses met the BD [Brief DISCERN] cut-off score of ≥16 to denote good-quality content,” the researchers wrote in their paper. BD is a validated healthcare information assessment questionnaire that “provides users with a valid and reliable way of assessing the quality of written information on treatment choices for a health problem,” according to the DISCERN website.
ChatGPT often “omitted key details or incorrectly processed their meaning, as it did by not recognizing the importance of pain from scar tissue in Peyronie’s disease. As a result … the AI provided an improper treatment recommendation,” the UF Health study paper noted.
Is Using ChatGPT for Medical Advice Dangerous to Patients?
Terry noted that the chatbot performed better in some areas over others, such as infertility, overactive bladder, and hypogonadism. However, frequently recurring UTIs in women was one topic of questions for which ChatGPT consistently gave incorrect results.
“One of the more dangerous characteristics of chatbots is that they can answer a patient’s inquiry with all the confidence of a veteran physician, even when completely wrong,” UF Health reported.
“In only one of the evaluated responses did the AI note it ‘cannot give medical advice’ … The chatbot recommended consulting with a doctor or medical adviser in only 62% of its responses,” UF Health noted.
For their part, ChatGPT’s developers “tell users the chatbot can provide bad information and warn users after logging in that ChatGPT ‘is not intended to give advice,’” UF Health added.
Future of Chatbots in Healthcare
In UF Health’s Urology paper, the researchers state, “Chatbot models hold great promise, but users should be cautious when interpreting healthcare-related advice from existing AI models. Additional training and modifications are needed before these AI models will be ready for reliable use by patients and providers.”
UF Health conducted its study in February 2023. Thus, the news release points out, results could be different now due to ChatGPT updates. Nevertheless, Terry urges users to get second opinions from their doctors.
“It’s always a good thing when patients take ownership of their healthcare and do research to get information on their own,” he said in the news release. “But just as when you use Google, don’t accept anything at face value without checking with your healthcare provider.”
That’s always good advice. Still, UF Health notes that “While this and other chatbots warn users that the programs are a work in progress, physicians believe some people will undoubtedly still rely on them.” Time will tell whether trusting AI for medical advice turns out well for those patients.
The study reported above is a useful warning to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists that current technologies used in ChatGPT, and similar AI-powered solutions, have not yet achieved the accuracy and reliability of trained medical diagnosticians when answering common questions about different health conditions asked by patients.
Device is latest example that wearable healthcare devices are moving past simple biomarker monitoring and into the area of assisting in rehab
Companies unrelated to traditional clinical laboratory medicine continue to develop wearable devices that enable individuals to monitor their health while also alerting physicians and caregivers in real time when certain biomarkers are out of range.
One recent example is US biotechnology company STAT Health Informatics in Boston, which has developed a wearable device that monitors blood flow to the ear and face “to better understand symptoms such as dizziness, brain fog, headaches, fainting, and fatigue that occur upon standing,” according to a press release. The tiny device is worn in the ear and connects wirelessly to a smartphone app.
Johns Hopkins University clinically tested the STAT device, and according to Medical Device Network, “It can predict a person fainting minutes before it happens and can be worn with more than 90% of devices that go in or around the ear. It can also be left in while sleeping and showering, meaning less likelihood of removing the device and forgetting to replace it.”
Another notable aspect of this invention is that it’s an example of how the ongoing miniaturization of various technologies makes it possible to invent smaller devices but with greater capabilities. In the case of the STAT device, it combines tiny sensors, Bluetooth, and an equally tiny battery to produce a device that fits in the ear and can function for up to three days before needing a recharge.
It’s easy to imagine these technologies being used for other types of diagnostic testing devices that could be managed by clinical laboratories.
“It’s well understood that the ear is a biometric gold mine because of its close proximity to the brain and major arteries. This allows for new biometrics … to be possible,” said Daniel Lee (above), co-founder and CEO of STAT Health, in a press release. “In addition, the ear is largely isolated from data corruption caused by arm motion—a problem that plagues current wearables and prevents them from monitoring heart metrics during many daily tasks. The ear is really the ideal window into the brain and heart.” Clinical laboratory managers may want to watch how this technology is further developed to incorporate other biomarkers for diseases and health conditions. (Photo copyright: STAT Health.)
How STAT Works
Every time the wearer stands, the STAT device tracks the change in response of blood pressure, heart rate, and blood flow to the head. “The device distills all this information into an ‘Up Score’ to track time spent upright. Its ‘Flow Score’ helps users pace their recovery by watching for blood flow abnormalities,” MassDevice reported.
According to the company’s website, STAT is intended for use in individuals who have been diagnosed with conditions known to suffer from drops in blood flow to the head, such as:
As an individual continues to use the device, STAT “learns about each user’s unique body to provide personalized coaching for healthy lifestyle choices,” MassDevice reported.
Another key factor is the technology built into the device. An optical sensor was chosen over ultrasound because STAT Health felt it was both easy to use and provided precise measurements accessing the shallow ear artery, MassDevice reported.
“Despite its small scale, the device incorporates advanced optical sensors, an accelerometer, a pressure sensor, temperature sensors, artificial intelligence (AI)-edge computing, three-day battery life (or more), and a micro solar panel,” Medical Device Network noted.
STAT’s image above demonstrates how truly minute the company’s wearable device is, even though it monitors blood flow to the face and ear looking for signs that the wearer is about to suffer bouts of dizziness or lightheadedness due to a drop in blood flow. (Photo copyright: STAT Health Informatics Inc.)
STAT’s Impact on Users’ Health
STAT’s developers intend the device to help individuals stay on track with their health. “The target population can navigate their condition better. If they’re not standing when they can, they will become deconditioned. This product encourages standing and being upright where possible, as part of rehab,” Lee told Medical Device Network.
Lee has been developing wearable in-ear devices for many years.
“Nobody has realized the ear’s true potential due to the miniaturization and complex systems design needed to make a practical and user-friendly ear wearable,” he told MassDevice. “After multiple engineering breakthroughs, we’ve succeeded in unlocking the ear to combine the convenience and long-term nature of wearables with the high fidelity nature of obtrusive clinical monitors. No other device comes close along the axis of wearability and cardiac signal quality, which is why we believe STAT is truly the world’s most advanced wearable.”
For clinical laboratories, though STAT is not a diagnostic test, it is the latest example of how companies are developing wearable monitoring devices intended to allow individuals to monitor their health. It moves beyond the simple monitoring of Apple Watch and Fitbit. This device can aid individuals during rehab.
Wearable healthcare devices will continue to be introduced that are smaller, allow more precise measurements of target biomarkers, and alert wearers in real time when those markers are out of range. Keeping in tune with the newest developments will help clinical laboratories and pathologists find new ways to support healthcare providers who recommend these devices for monitoring their patients conditions.
Biobattery might one day power clinical laboratory testing devices designed to function in vivo to measure and wirelessly report certain biomarkers
Clinical laboratories may one day regularly process biomarker data sent by ingested medical devices from inside the human body, such as the colon and intestines. But powering such devices remains a challenge for developers. Now, researchers at Binghamton University in New York have developed a biobattery that derives its power based on pH reactions when it comes in contact with acids inside the gut.
The battery uses “bacteria to create low levels of electricity that can power sensors and Wi-Fi connections as part of the Internet of Things,” according to a Binghamton University news release.
The biobattery uses microbial fuel cells with spore-forming bacteria for power and it remains inactive until it reaches the small intestine.
Ingestible devices, such as wireless micro cameras, are being utilized more frequently to investigate a myriad of activities that occur in vivo. But traditional batteries that power ingestible diagnostic gadgets can be potentially harmful and are less reliable.
In addition, the small intestine in humans is typically between 10 and 18 feet in length and it folds several times to fit the abdomen. Thus, the inside area can be very difficult to reach for diagnostic purposes.
“There are some regions in the small intestine that are not reachable, and that is why ingestible cameras have been developed to solve this issue,” said Seokheun “Sean” Choi, PhD (above), Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Binghamton University, in a news release. “They can do many things, such as imaging and physical sensing, even drug delivery. The problem is power. So far, the electronics are using primary batteries that have a finite energy budget and cannot function for the long term.” As these technologies develop, clinical laboratories may play a role in collecting biomarker data from these devices interpretation by physicians. (Photo copyright: Binghamton University/Jonathan Cohen.)
How Binghamton Researchers Developed Their Biobattery
The dime-sized fuel cell assembly is then sealed with a piece of Kapton tape, which can withstand temperatures from -500 to 750 degrees Fahrenheit. When the tape is removed, moisture mixes with a chemical germinant that causes the bacteria to begin manufacturing spores.
The biobattery generates around 100 microwatts per square centimeter of power density, but it can take up to an hour to germinate completely. After one hour, the energy generated from the device can power an LED light, a small clock, or a digital hygrometer, as well as a micro camera for in vivo use.
“We wanted to make these bio-batteries for portable, storable, and on-demand power generation capabilities,” Choi said in the news release.
“The problem is, how can we provide the long-term storage of bacteria until used? And if that is possible, then how would you provide on-demand battery activation for rapid and easy power generation? And how would you improve the power?” Choi added.
Heating the fuel cell decreased the time it took to reach full power to 20 minutes, and increasing the humidity resulted in higher electrical output.
Potential for Long-term Power Storage
In addition, after a week of being stored at room temperature, the activated battery had only lost 2% of its power. The researchers also believe that the device could function properly in an inactivate state for up to 100 years, provided there is enough moisture to activate the bacteria after the Kapton tape is removed.
“The overall objective is to develop a microbial fuel cell that can be stored for a relatively long period without degradation of bio-catalytic activity, and also can be rapidly activated by absorbing moisture from the air,” said Choi in the news release.
More research and studies are needed to confirm the biobattery performs properly and is feasible for general use. This experimentation would require both animal and human testing, along with biocompatibility studies.
“I think this is a good start,” Choi added. “Hopefully, we can make a commercial product using these ideas.”
If the biobattery can power an ingestible medical device for a reasonable period of time, then this invention may be able to power a clinical laboratory testing device that could function in vivo to measure and wirelessly report certain biomarkers inside the body.
