BACKGROUND: Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) monitoring is an integral component of diabetes management. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the A1CNow® SELFCHECK device when used by lay users and health care professionals (HCPs) to measure A1C. METHODS: Subjects performed two A1CNow SELFCHECK finger-stick self-tests followed by a finger-stick test of the subject's blood by a HCP. The primary endpoint assessed accuracy of the subject and HCP A1CNow SELFCHECK readings. Secondary endpoints included precision, comprehension of instructional material (written material±DVD), and product satisfaction. For accuracy comparison, a venous blood sample was drawn from each subject and tested by laboratory (TOSOH) analysis. Subject comprehension of product instructional material was evaluated via first-time failure (FTF) rate as recorded by the HCP, and subject satisfaction was assessed through written survey. RESULTS: A total of 110 subjects with (n=93) and without (n=17) diabetes participated. Of 177 subject A1C values, 165 (93.2%) were within the acceptable range of ±13.5% of the laboratory reference value and considered accurate. Regression analysis showed good correlation of subject values to laboratory and HCP results (R2=0.93 for both). The average within-subject coefficient of variation was 4.57% (n=74). The FTF rates with and without instructional DVD were 11.3% (n=56) and 39.6% (n=54), respectively. Subjects with diabetes/prediabetes overwhelmingly indicated that they were "very" to "extremely" likely (93.5%) to discuss their home A1C results with their HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Lay users found the A1CNow SELFCHECK easy to use, and both lay users and HCPs were able to measure A1C accurately.
BACKGROUND: Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) monitoring is an integral component of diabetes management. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the A1CNow® SELFCHECK device when used by lay users and health care professionals (HCPs) to measure A1C. METHODS: Subjects performed two A1CNow SELFCHECK finger-stick self-tests followed by a finger-stick test of the subject's blood by a HCP. The primary endpoint assessed accuracy of the subject and HCP A1CNow SELFCHECK readings. Secondary endpoints included precision, comprehension of instructional material (written material±DVD), and product satisfaction. For accuracy comparison, a venous blood sample was drawn from each subject and tested by laboratory (TOSOH) analysis. Subject comprehension of product instructional material was evaluated via first-time failure (FTF) rate as recorded by the HCP, and subject satisfaction was assessed through written survey. RESULTS: A total of 110 subjects with (n=93) and without (n=17) diabetes participated. Of 177 subject A1C values, 165 (93.2%) were within the acceptable range of ±13.5% of the laboratory reference value and considered accurate. Regression analysis showed good correlation of subject values to laboratory and HCP results (R2=0.93 for both). The average within-subject coefficient of variation was 4.57% (n=74). The FTF rates with and without instructional DVD were 11.3% (n=56) and 39.6% (n=54), respectively. Subjects with diabetes/prediabetes overwhelmingly indicated that they were "very" to "extremely" likely (93.5%) to discuss their home A1C results with their HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Lay users found the A1CNow SELFCHECK easy to use, and both lay users and HCPs were able to measure A1C accurately.
Authors: William L Roberts; Sekineh Safar-Pour; Barun K De; Curt L Rohlfing; Cas W Weykamp; Randie R Little Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-02-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Christopher D Miller; Catherine S Barnes; Lawrence S Phillips; David C Ziemer; Daniel L Gallina; Curtiss B Cook; Sandra D Maryman; Imad M El-Kebbi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Nangel M Lindberg; Sonia Vega-López; Erin S LeBlanc; Michael C Leo; Victor J Stevens; Sara Gille; Mayra Arias-Gastélum; Elizabeth Shuster; Richard Meenan; Katherine A Vaughn; Meagan C Shaw; Ann Turner Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2019-03-11
Authors: Marcela Osorio; Joseph E Ravenell; Mary A Sevick; Yonathan Ararso; Ta'Loria Young; Stephen P Wall; David C Lee Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Mary Rosedale; Michael A Pesce; Caroline Juterbock; Navjot Kaur; Joe DePaola; Deborah Goetz; Mark S Wolff; Dolores Malaspina; Ann Danoff Journal: Point Care Date: 2014-12
Authors: Susan J Andreae; Lynn J Andreae; Joshua S Richman; Andrea L Cherrington; Monika M Safford Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.166