Meet the UP Graduates Behind BiDaKidney, a Home Dialysis Device

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is becoming a growing health concern in the Philippines. For many patients, dialysis is not just a medical treatment, but it has become a part of everyday life.
In 2024, the number of Filipinos undergoing dialysis reached 64,845, up 22% from the year before. One Filipino develops CKD every hour, according to data released this June 2026 by the Philippine Information Agency.
These alarming figures have pushed the government to advance a nationwide campaign to prevent kidney disease. But beyond these numbers lie the daily struggles of both patients and loved ones managing recurring treatment costs, regular hospital visits, and the heavy demands of long-term care.
For University of the Philippines Diliman graduates Andrew Jacob Buensalido and Allyson Cabrestante, those realities became the starting point for BiDaKidney, a low-cost, semi-automated peritoneal dialysis machine designed with home-based treatment in mind.
What began as a university capstone quickly grew out of its initial purpose beyond the classroom. Inspired by the challenges faced by those trying to manage CKD, Andrew and Allyson began exploring how engineering could make parts of the dialysis process easier to manage at home.
Their work recently earned them the Philippine national prize at the 2026 James Dyson Award, giving the young engineers funding to continue developing the prototype as they look toward its next stage.
In this exclusive, The Beat Asia speaks with Andrew Jacob Buensalido and Allyson Cabrestante about what inspired BiDaKidney, the realities of designing healthcare technology for Filipino patients, and the James Dyson Award.

BiDaKidney came out of your exposure to the realities of dialysis care in public healthcare settings. What made you realize this was a problem you wanted to solve?
Andrew: The idea did not come from one individual patient, but from learning about the experiences of many patients and families navigating dialysis care. My older sister works as a healthcare provider in a tertiary government hospital, and she encouraged us to look into the limited dialysis options available to many Filipinos.
Through her, we began to understand that dialysis, in particular peritoneal dialysis, affects much more than a patient's time in treatment. It can also involve recurring expenses, travel, scheduling, careful monitoring, and continuous support from family members or caregivers. That made us ask whether engineering could make at least part of that routine easier and more manageable at home.
When you first studied the dialysis process, which pain points stood out immediately? And which ones revealed themselves as you progressed?
Allyson; The most visible burdens were the repeated manual steps involved in peritoneal dialysis. Patients or caregivers may need to manage the fluid lines, monitor the exchanges, weigh the dialysis bags, and record how much fluid enters and leaves the body.
As we studied the process more closely, we saw how these small tasks accumulate. Repeatedly handling the tubing creates more opportunities for contamination, while manual monitoring and record-keeping require consistent attention.
From an engineering perspective, we also learned that the device needed to accommodate variations in fluid-flow requirements, making precision and reliability essential to the design. Particularly for pediatric and neonatal patients, they did not have access to automation in their treatment because of their much lower fluid-flow requirements.
The machine is meant to make dialysis easier not only for patients but also for family members and caregivers. How much did the caregiver experience influence the design?
Andrew: The caregiver experience was central to the design. Home-based treatment does not necessarily mean that the patient manages everything alone. In many cases, a family member or caregiver helps prepare supplies, manage the tubing, monitor the process, and record information. In the case of pediatric CKD patients, especially for low-income households, this burden becomes such an overwhelming challenge that their parents often have to quit their jobs and to take care of them full-time.
We therefore wanted BiDaKidney to reduce some of that repeated manual work. The goal is not to remove the caregiver's role, but to make the routine more manageable and give patients and the people supporting them greater confidence in carrying it out.
For users who have little to no medical training, how is your device designed to cater to their capabilities?
Allyson: We designed BiDaKidney with home use in mind, so the process needs to be understandable even for someone without an engineering or medical background. One important decision was to make it compatible with standard peritoneal dialysis supplies rather than asking users to shift to a completely unfamiliar system.
The current prototype includes user-friendly pumps, automatic clamps, tubing guides, tool-free covers, and sensors that monitor fluid volume. For future versions, we also want to improve the interface and add clearer patient guidance, including audio cues for the beginning and end of the treatment process.
BiDaKidney remains a prototype, so these features will still need to be assessed more broadly with patients, caregivers, nurses, and medical professionals.
You described BiDaKidney as a low-cost machine. What did "low-cost" mean to you during development?
Allyson: For us, "low-cost" did not simply mean choosing the cheapest components. It meant designing around the realities of the people we hope the design may eventually serve, while continuing to prioritize functionality, reliability, and safety. One such example of this during development was the decision for the machine to be used with the dialysate bags patients already use for manual peritoneal dialysis, so they no longer need to buy specialized sets.
We looked for ways to simplify the system, reduce unnecessary components, use more accessible manufacturing methods, and work with standard dialysis supplies that are already available. The aim was to explore whether automation could become more attainable without requiring families to adopt an entirely new treatment system.
Were you working toward a particular price point?
Allyson: During prototyping, we worked within a student budget and treated affordability as an important design constraint. However, we are not yet setting a final selling price.
The cost of a medical product involves so much more than the materials used in an early prototype. Further development, testing, certification, manufacturing, quality assurance, maintenance, and patient support would all affect its eventual cost. At this stage, our priority is to validate and improve the design while exploring materials, suppliers, grants, partnerships, and manufacturing approaches that could help make it accessible in the future.

How difficult is it to keep a medical device affordable without compromising reliability, safety, or durability?
Allyson: It is one of the most difficult parts of the project because affordability cannot come at the expense of patient safety. Every decision involves trade-offs. A component may be less expensive, but it still needs to move the fluid accurately, withstand repeated use, and perform consistently.
Our approach has been to simplify the design rather than remove essential functions. We repeatedly tested the pump, upgraded components when they overheated or lacked sufficient control, added sensors for fluid monitoring, and developed a tube-clamping mechanism to help prevent leaks and backflow.
There is still significant testing ahead, but affordability and safety need to develop together rather than being treated as competing goals.
One of the planned improvements is battery-powered operation, specifically because of local power interruptions. What were the local realities here that affected your design decision?
Allyson: A home-based medical device has to reflect the environment in which people will actually use it. In the Philippines, power interruptions can be a practical concern, particularly outside major urban centers. That is why battery-powered operation is one of the improvements we want to explore.
We are also considering portability, ease of assembly and maintenance, compatibility with available dialysis supplies, and possible use by households or provincial healthcare facilities. A device cannot be designed only for ideal conditions. It eventually needs to be tested against the realities of the communities it is intended to support.
Do you think medical technologies designed in wealthier nations sometimes overlook certain everyday realities and lived experiences of those in third-world countries?
Andrew: Medical technologies are often developed for particular healthcare systems, infrastructure conditions, and purchasing environments. As a result, they may not always translate directly to places where patients face different constraints, such as cost, distance from specialized care, intermittent power, limited technical support, or greater dependence on family caregivers.
We prefer to see this as a difference in healthcare contexts rather than assume existing technologies deliberately disregard certain communities. For us, the lesson is that engineers need to understand local users from the beginning. A strong technology is not defined only by what it can do, but also by whether people can realistically access, operate, maintain, and trust it.
How do you factor in quality of life when you're designing an engineering solution?
Andrew: Quality of life is one of the main reasons we began this project. Dialysis is not only a technical or clinical process. It becomes a part of a person's everyday routine and can affect time for work, school, family, rest, and other parts of life.
When we consider a feature, we ask what it could mean for the patient or caregiver. Could it reduce repeated manual work? Could it make monitoring easier? Could it give someone more confidence in managing treatment at home?
Ultimately, we hope to help patients spend less of their day managing peritoneal dialysis and more time living the rest of their lives. That impact will still need to be assessed through proper patient evaluation, but it remains the goal guiding the design.

You developed BiDaKidney while still at the university level, but you're now talking about doing more. What has been the biggest shift in mindset as the project moves to becoming a medical product?
Allyson: The biggest shift has been recognizing that a functioning prototype is only the beginning. In university, we were focused on proving that the core engineering concept could work. As the project moves forward, we need to think much more deeply about safety, usability, repeatability, documentation, regulation, manufacturing, maintenance, and h1ow the device would fit into actual clinical practice.
The standard also changes. It is no longer enough for the prototype to work during our own tests. A potential medical product must perform safely and consistently for different users and under different conditions. That has made us more cautious, but it has also made us more committed to developing BiDaKidney properly.
What parts of that transition feel the most daunting?
Andrew: The most daunting part is the responsibility involved. Medical devices directly affect people's health, so every claim must be supported and every potential risk carefully considered.
Once our technology is ready, we'll be transitioning from testing BiDaKidney on just a training mannequin to a real, living patient. Formal clinical testing, regulatory requirements, consistent manufacturing, funding, and broader patient evaluation are all complex areas that go beyond building the original prototype. We know we cannot navigate them alone. Moving forward will require guidance and collaboration from patients, caregivers, medical professionals, researchers, regulatory experts, manufacturers, and potential funding partners.
What have you had to learn that engineering school didn't necessarily prepare you for?
Allyson: Engineering school taught us how to define a problem, test ideas, and improve a design through iteration. What we are learning now is how much work surrounds the technology itself.
We need to understand the healthcare environment, listen to patients and caregivers, document testing properly, consider regulatory pathways, and think about how a product could be manufactured and supported consistently. We are also learning that healthcare innovation requires interdisciplinary collaboration.
Engineering may begin the solution, but it cannot complete the journey by itself.

When you look at the scale of kidney disease in the country, where do you think engineering and design can realistically make the biggest difference?
Andrew: Engineering and design can make a difference by reducing avoidable burdens within the treatment experience. These can include repetitive manual steps, difficult monitoring, portability challenges, and technologies that remain financially out of reach for many households.
Design can also help make healthcare tools easier to understand and use. At the same time, we do not see BiDaKidney as a solution to the entire kidney disease burden. Our device is focused on one part of the care pathway: exploring how home-based peritoneal dialysis could become more manageable for eligible patients and caregivers.
Is the more urgent problem affordability, access, decentralizing treatment, reducing caregiver burden, or something else?
Andrew: These issues are interconnected. A device may be technically available, but it is not truly accessible if a family cannot afford it, if support is only available in certain locations, or if the daily process remains too difficult to manage at home.
For BiDaKidney, we are looking at how affordability, access, and caregiver burden can be addressed together. However, the wider challenge also involves early diagnosis, specialist access, patient education, treatment supplies, healthcare financing, and support from the broader health system.
Where do you think technology alone reaches its limit?
Andrew: Technology reaches its limit when it is treated as separate from the people and systems around it. A machine cannot replace medical judgment, proper patient training, clinical supervision, reliable access to supplies, or the emotional and practical support patients receive from caregivers.
BiDaKidney is intended to support a doctor-prescribed treatment process, not replace healthcare professionals. Even if the technology eventually performs as intended, it would still need to operate within a complete system of patient education, clinical guidance, monitoring, maintenance, and healthcare access.

Winning the James Dyson Award gives you funding to continue developing BiDaKidney. What are the biggest challenges ahead of you?
Allyson: Our immediate challenge is to improve the prototype's usability, safety features, electronics, and patient guidance. Beyond that, BiDaKidney will need formal clinical testing, broader patient evaluation, relevant medical and safety clearances, and a design that can be manufactured consistently.
Other barriers include funding, access to technical and clinical expertise, sourcing reliable components, setting up quality-control processes, and determining how the device could be maintained and supported after deployment. These are significant challenges, but the James Dyson Award gives us an opportunity to begin addressing them more seriously.
In line with that, how long do you think it will take to bring BiDaKidney to the market? Are you looking for additional support?
Allyson: It is still too early for us to give a responsible market timeline. BiDaKidney is an early-stage prototype and has not yet undergone live clinical trials. Before it could be considered for patient use, it would need several stages of refinement, evaluation, testing, and regulatory review.
We are open to support from government agencies, hospitals, universities, medical societies, research institutions, NGOs, investors, and private-sector partners, provided that the collaboration supports careful and ethical development.
Funding is important, but we also need clinical guidance, research support, regulatory expertise, manufacturing knowledge, and access to appropriate testing environments.
Beyond BiDaKidney, do you see yourselves continuing to work in healthcare engineering?
Andrew: This project has shown us how engineering can contribute to problems that affect people's daily lives. It has also shown us how much responsibility comes with designing for healthcare.
We would like to continue exploring work where engineering, design, and social impact intersect, whether through BiDaKidney or other projects. We are especially interested in solutions shaped by real user needs and local conditions, rather than technology developed only for its own sake. With biomedical engineering naturally leaning into this, we believe it will continue to be a field of interest for us both.
What were your initial thoughts when you were announced as the James Dyson Award winners?
Andrew: Our first reaction was a mix of disbelief, gratitude, and excitement. BiDaKidney began as our university capstone project, so seeing it recognized at the national level made us realize that it could have a purpose beyond the classroom.
At the same time, the recognition felt like a responsibility. Winning did not mean that the invention was finished. It meant that other people saw value in the problem we were trying to address and were giving us an opportunity to continue the work. Feedback from healthcare professionals and stories shared with us by PD patients about the challenges of manual peritoneal dialysis revealed that BiDaKidney really can make a big difference in making the process easier and more manageable for patients once it reaches their homes.
What are your hopes and expectations with BiDaKidney and with your careers?
Andrew: For BiDaKidney, our hope is to develop it responsibly into a solution that could eventually support patients, caregivers, households, and healthcare organizations. The immediate goal is not to rush it to market, but to improve it, test it properly, and understand how it could fit safely into real-world care.
For our careers, we hope to become engineers who begin with the needs of people. We want to build solutions that are practical, thoughtful, and grounded in the communities they are intended to serve.
And what are you looking forward to as you advance to the international stage of the Dyson Award?
Allyson: We are looking forward to presenting a Filipino-designed solution alongside innovations from other parts of the world. Reaching the international stage can give us new perspectives on how the engineering and design of BiDaKidney could be strengthened.
Andrew: Most importantly, we hope the opportunity shows that Filipino student engineers can develop meaningful responses to complex local challenges. Regardless of the outcome, we want to use the experience to learn, build new connections, and bring BiDaKidney closer to its next stage of responsible development.
For more information on BiDaKidney, check out their page on the James Dyson Award website. They also have a YouTube page where you can learn more about the BiDaKidney device.
Looking for the perfect place to gather, celebrate, or unwind? Discover and book standout venues across Asia with SPACES by The Beat Asia. Find your space today! Click here to explore SPACES.














































































