OBJECTIVES: Blood glucose meters for patient self-measurement need to comply with the accuracy standards of the ISO 15197 guideline. We investigated the accuracy of the two new blood glucose meters BG*Star and iBG*Star (Sanofi-Aventis) in comparison to four other competitive devices (Accu-Chek Aviva, Roche Diagnostics; FreeStyle Freedom Lite, Abbott Medisense; Contour, Bayer; OneTouch Ultra 2, Lifescan) at different blood glucose ranges in a clinical setting with healthy subjects and patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BGStar and iBGStar are employ dynamic electrochemistry, which is supposed to result in highly accurate results. METHODS: The study was performed on 106 participants (53 female, 53 male, age (mean ± SD): 46 ± 16 years, type 1: 32 patients, type 2: 34 patients, and 40 healthy subjects). Two devices from each type and strips from two different production lots were used for glucose assessment (∼200 readings/meter). Spontaneous glucose assessments and glucose or insulin interventions under medical supervision were applied to perform measurements in the different glucose ranges in accordance with the ISO 15197 requirements. Sample values <50 mg/dL and >400 mg/dL were prepared by laboratory manipulations. The YSI glucose analyzer (glucose oxidase method) served as the standard reference method which may be considered to be a limitation in light of glucose hexokinase-based meters. RESULTS: For all devices, there was a very close correlation between the glucose results compared to the YSI reference method results. The correlation coefficients were r = 0.995 for BGStar and r = 0.992 for iBGStar (Aviva: 0.995, Freedom Lite: 0.990, Contour: 0.993, Ultra 2: 0.990). Error-grid analysis according to Parkes and Clarke revealed both 100% of the readings to be within the clinically acceptable areas (Clarke: A + B with BG*Star (100 + 0), Aviva (97 + 3), and Contour (97 + 3); and 99.5% with iBG*Star (97.5 + 2), Freedom Lite (98 + 1.5), and Ultra 2 (97.5 + 2)). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the very high accuracy of BG*Star, iBG*Star, and the competitive blood glucose meters in a clinical setting.
OBJECTIVES:Blood glucose meters for patient self-measurement need to comply with the accuracy standards of the ISO 15197 guideline. We investigated the accuracy of the two new blood glucose meters BG*Star and iBG*Star (Sanofi-Aventis) in comparison to four other competitive devices (Accu-Chek Aviva, Roche Diagnostics; FreeStyle Freedom Lite, Abbott Medisense; Contour, Bayer; OneTouch Ultra 2, Lifescan) at different blood glucose ranges in a clinical setting with healthy subjects and patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BGStar and iBGStar are employ dynamic electrochemistry, which is supposed to result in highly accurate results. METHODS: The study was performed on 106 participants (53 female, 53 male, age (mean ± SD): 46 ± 16 years, type 1: 32 patients, type 2: 34 patients, and 40 healthy subjects). Two devices from each type and strips from two different production lots were used for glucose assessment (∼200 readings/meter). Spontaneous glucose assessments and glucose or insulin interventions under medical supervision were applied to perform measurements in the different glucose ranges in accordance with the ISO 15197 requirements. Sample values <50 mg/dL and >400 mg/dL were prepared by laboratory manipulations. The YSI glucose analyzer (glucose oxidase method) served as the standard reference method which may be considered to be a limitation in light of glucose hexokinase-based meters. RESULTS: For all devices, there was a very close correlation between the glucose results compared to the YSI reference method results. The correlation coefficients were r = 0.995 for BGStar and r = 0.992 for iBGStar (Aviva: 0.995, Freedom Lite: 0.990, Contour: 0.993, Ultra 2: 0.990). Error-grid analysis according to Parkes and Clarke revealed both 100% of the readings to be within the clinically acceptable areas (Clarke: A + B with BG*Star (100 + 0), Aviva (97 + 3), and Contour (97 + 3); and 99.5% with iBG*Star (97.5 + 2), Freedom Lite (98 + 1.5), and Ultra 2 (97.5 + 2)). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the very high accuracy of BG*Star, iBG*Star, and the competitive blood glucose meters in a clinical setting.
Authors: Solveig Halldorsdottir; Mary Ellen Warchal-Windham; Jane F Wallace; Scott Pardo; Joan Lee Parkes; David A Simmons Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-09-01
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Christina Schipper; Sanja Ramljak; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst; Petra B Musholt Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-01-01