Exploring the Potential of Bioartificial Pancreas and DIY APS Innovations
Imagine a life where every morsel of food requires complex calculation, where nights are interrupted by alarms warning of dangerous blood sugar levels, and where a single missed insulin dose could be fatal. This is the daily reality for millions living with type 1 diabetes worldwide.
Adults living with diabetes in 2021 1
Annual diabetes-related deaths 1
People with type 1 diabetes globally 1
For decades, the primary treatment has involved meticulous blood sugar monitoring and insulin injections—a burdensome regimen that fails to replicate the pancreas's sophisticated natural regulation. Even with technological advances like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors, patients remain trapped in a relentless cycle of management decisions.
But this landscape is rapidly changing. On the horizon are two revolutionary approaches that promise to transform diabetes care: the bioartificial pancreas (BAP) that mimics natural pancreatic function, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS) that put powerful automation directly into patients' hands. These innovations represent not just incremental improvements but fundamental shifts in how we approach one of medicine's most persistent challenges.
The bioartificial pancreas represents a groundbreaking approach that bridges the gap between mechanical devices and biological transplantation. At its core, a BAP is designed to replicate the function of a healthy pancreas by combining living insulin-producing cells with synthetic protective materials 3 . This creates a self-regulating system that can automatically sense blood glucose levels and release appropriate amounts of insulin—essentially creating an autonomous insulin factory within the body.
The fundamental challenge that BAP technology solves is the immune system's tendency to destroy transplanted insulin-producing cells. The ingenious solution: encapsulation. Scientists surround these precious cells with semi-permeable membranes that act as protective bubbles. These membranes allow crucial molecules like oxygen, glucose, and insulin to pass through freely while blocking the larger immune cells and antibodies that would attack the foreign tissue 5 6 .
This approach involves housing islet cells within larger flat sheet or hollow fiber devices. These macrocapsules typically measure several centimeters and can contain thousands of islets. Their advantage lies in being easily retrievable from the body if necessary, addressing safety concerns 5 .
Individual islets or small clusters are enveloped in tiny, spherical gel capsules usually made of alginate, a material derived from seaweed. Each microcapsule measures between 70-250 micrometers in diameter—roughly the width of a human hair. These are then injected into the body, typically into the abdominal cavity 6 .
The most recent advancement involves surrounding cells with ultrathin protective coatings at the nanometer scale. This approach aims to provide immune protection while minimizing the volume of implanted material 5 .
The cells inside these protective capsules can come from various sources, including human stem cells, specially engineered animal islets (particularly from pigs), or reprogrammed human liver cells 5 . This diversity of potential sources is crucial for creating a sustainable supply beyond limited human organ donors.
While researchers perfect bioartificial pancreases in laboratories, a parallel revolution has been unfolding in living rooms and online communities: the rise of DIY artificial pancreas systems. Born from frustration with the slow pace of commercial development, tech-savvy patients and caregivers began creating their own automated insulin delivery systems using existing components 7 .
The movement gained momentum under the hashtag #WeAreNotWaiting, reflecting patients' determination to improve their lives without delay 3 . These individuals—often with no formal medical device training—figured out how to connect continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to computer algorithms running on smartphones or small devices. These systems automatically adjust insulin delivery based on real-time glucose readings, significantly reducing the mental burden of constant diabetes management.
At its core, a DIY APS integrates three main components:
Tracks blood sugar levels every five minutes
Delivers precise amounts of insulin
Decides how much insulin to deliver based on CGM readings
The real magic lies in the algorithms, which use sophisticated mathematical models to predict where blood sugar is heading and make proactive adjustments. These systems can anticipate highs and lows before they happen, adjusting insulin delivery accordingly. Popular platforms include OpenAPS, AndroidAPS, and Loop—each with slightly different approaches but the same fundamental goal 3 7 .
The patient-led movement driving innovation in diabetes technology through open-source solutions and community collaboration.
One of the most significant hurdles in bioartificial pancreas development has been ensuring encapsulated cells receive adequate oxygen. Pancreatic islets are exceptionally metabolically active cells that consume high amounts of oxygen, and without proper supply, they quickly die inside their protective capsules. This challenge inspired a crucial 2022 study that systematically addressed the oxygen limitation problem 9 .
Researchers employed a sophisticated statistical design of experiment (DoE) approach to identify the optimal oxygen-balancing configuration for a bioartificial pancreas. The study investigated two complementary oxygen-supply technologies:
The experiment was conducted in two phases. First, researchers screened these technologies under both normal (20% O₂) and low-oxygen (1% O₂) conditions using MIN6 beta cell pseudo-islets. They measured cell viability through ATP content (indicating energy status), ATP/LDH ratio (indicating cell health), and insulin stimulation index (measuring function). In the second phase, they used response surface methodology to determine the ideal concentrations of HEMOXCell and islet seeding density to maximize viable cell number in low-oxygen conditions 9 .
The experimental results demonstrated substantial improvements in maintaining islet viability under oxygen-limiting conditions:
| Condition | ATP Content (%) | ATP/LDH Ratio (%) | Insulin Stimulation Index (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normoxic control (20% O₂) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Hypoxia without O₂ support | 42.5 | 58.3 | 85.2 |
| Hypoxia with HEMOXCell only | 51.8 | 71.4 | 79.6 |
| Hypoxia with silicone-CaO₂ only | 63.7 | 89.7 | 72.4 |
| Hypoxia with both technologies | 56.3 | 108.3 | 80.8 |
The data revealed several crucial findings. First, the combination of HEMOXCell and silicone-CaO₂ created a synergistic effect—together they performed better than either technology alone, particularly in maintaining cellular energy status (ATP/LDH ratio). Second, silicone-CaO₂ alone showed a powerful protective effect under low-oxygen conditions. Most importantly, the optimal configuration identified through this systematic approach successfully maintained islet viability, function, and maturation over 15 days in culture—a significant duration that suggests potential for long-term function in clinical applications 9 .
This experiment represents more than just a technical improvement; it addresses one of the fundamental barriers to creating a clinically viable bioartificial pancreas. By solving the oxygen supply challenge, researchers move closer to devices that can support the high islet densities needed to reverse diabetes in humans, potentially in devices small enough for practical implantation.
As artificial pancreas technology evolves, patients now have multiple options for automated insulin delivery. The landscape includes both regulated commercial systems and community-driven DIY solutions, each with distinct features and advantages.
| Device Name | Regulatory Status | Target Age Group | Key Features | Glucose Regulation Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medtronic MiniMed 780G | FDA Approved | 7 years and above | Automatic meal detection, SmartGuard technology, 7-day usage | As low as 100 mg/dL |
| Insulet Omnipod 5 | FDA Approved, CE Mark | 2 years and above | Tubeless, waterproof, smartphone control, 3-day usage | 110-150 mg/dL |
| Tandem t:slim X2 | FDA Approved | 6 years and above | 30-minute prediction algorithm, rechargeable | 112-160 mg/dL |
| Beta Bionics iLet | FDA Approved | 6 years and above | Weight-based initialization, adaptive learning | Not specified |
| DIY APS (OpenAPS, etc.) | Not approved (use at own risk) | No restrictions | Highly customizable, open-source, community-supported | User configurable |
| Glycemic Parameter | Before DIY APS | After DIY APS |
|---|---|---|
| Time in Range (TIR) | 63% ± 10% | 80% ± 12% |
| Time Above Range (TAR) | 28% ± 12% | 17% ± 14% |
| Time Below Range (TBR) | 13% ± 11% | 7% ± 6% |
| Hemoglobin A1c | 8.02% | 6.75% |
A 2025 study of DIY APS users found significant improvements across all measured parameters, with users reporting "reduced fear of hypoglycemia, better sleep quality, and greater flexibility in daily routines" 7 . These outcomes highlight how both commercial and DIY approaches are delivering tangible benefits to people with diabetes.
The future of diabetes technology points toward increasingly sophisticated automation and integration. Researchers are already working on next-generation systems that incorporate artificial intelligence to further reduce user burden. As one scientist noted, "These newer approaches can help alleviate those requirements and we are hopeful that we can make insulin management even easier for people with type 1 diabetes" 8 .
The goal is a fully closed-loop system that requires no user input for meals or exercise—a significant advancement over current hybrid systems that still require meal announcements. University of Virginia researchers are conducting home-based clinical trials testing systems that "merge artificial intelligence and advanced model-based algorithms to deliver insulin around meals independently of any user-machine interactions" 8 .
Meanwhile, bioartificial pancreas technology continues to advance through approaches that combine cell-based therapies with protective materials to create more natural glucose regulation. The ideal future might combine elements of both—biohybrid devices that incorporate living cells within sophisticated mechanical systems.
Hybrid closed-loop systems with meal announcements
Fully closed-loop systems with AI-powered meal detection
Integration of BAP with electronic systems
Biohybrid devices combining living cells with electronics
The development of bioartificial pancreas technology and the rise of DIY artificial pancreas systems represent complementary fronts in the battle against type 1 diabetes. While they emerge from different philosophies—one from formal research institutions, the other from patient communities—both share the common goal of restoring natural, automatic insulin regulation.
These innovations promise more than just better numbers on glucose monitors; they offer the potential for liberation from relentless mental calculations, fear of nighttime hypoglycemia, and the constant anxiety that accompanies life with type 1 diabetes.
The path forward will likely see continued refinement of both approaches, with lessons from DIY systems influencing commercial development and vice versa. What remains clear is that after decades of incremental improvements, we stand at the threshold of a transformative era in diabetes care—one where the artificial pancreas, in its various forms, promises to rewrite the daily experience of millions living with this challenging condition.