BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy of Contour(®) Next (CN; Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Whippany, NJ) compared with five blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) across a wide range of clinically occurring blood glucose levels. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects (n=146) were ≥ 18 years and had type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Subjects' glucose levels were safely lowered or raised to provide a wide range of glucose values. Capillary blood samples were tested on six BGMSs and a YSI glucose analyzer (YSI Life Sciences, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) as the reference. Extreme glucose values were achieved by glucose modification of the blood sample. System accuracy was assessed by mean absolute difference (MAD) and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) across several glucose ranges, with <70 mg/dL evaluated by MAD as the primary end point. RESULTS: In the low glucose range (<70 mg/dL), MAD values were as follows: Accu-Chek(®) Aviva Nano (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN), 3.34 mg/dL; CN, 2.03 mg/dL; FreeStyle Lite(®) (FSL; Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Alameda, CA), 2.77 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Ultra(®) 2 (LifeScan, Inc., Milpitas, CA), 10.20 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Verio(®) Pro (LifeScan, Inc.), 4.53 mg/dL; and Truetrack(®) (Nipro Diagnostics, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL), 11.08 mg/dL. The lowest MAD in the low glucose range, from CN, was statistically significantly lower than those of the other BGMSs with the exception of the FSL. CN also had a statistically significantly lower MARD than all other BGMSs in the low glucose range. In the overall glucose range (21-496 mg/dL), CN yielded the lowest MAD and MARD values, which were statistically significantly lower in comparison with the other BGMSs. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with other BGMSs, CN demonstrated the lowest mean deviation from the reference value (by MAD and MARD) across multiple glucose ranges.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy of Contour(®) Next (CN; Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Whippany, NJ) compared with five blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) across a wide range of clinically occurring blood glucose levels. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects (n=146) were ≥ 18 years and had type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Subjects' glucose levels were safely lowered or raised to provide a wide range of glucose values. Capillary blood samples were tested on six BGMSs and a YSI glucose analyzer (YSI Life Sciences, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) as the reference. Extreme glucose values were achieved by glucose modification of the blood sample. System accuracy was assessed by mean absolute difference (MAD) and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) across several glucose ranges, with <70 mg/dL evaluated by MAD as the primary end point. RESULTS: In the low glucose range (<70 mg/dL), MAD values were as follows: Accu-Chek(®) Aviva Nano (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN), 3.34 mg/dL; CN, 2.03 mg/dL; FreeStyle Lite(®) (FSL; Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Alameda, CA), 2.77 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Ultra(®) 2 (LifeScan, Inc., Milpitas, CA), 10.20 mg/dL; OneTouch(®) Verio(®) Pro (LifeScan, Inc.), 4.53 mg/dL; and Truetrack(®) (Nipro Diagnostics, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL), 11.08 mg/dL. The lowest MAD in the low glucose range, from CN, was statistically significantly lower than those of the other BGMSs with the exception of the FSL. CN also had a statistically significantly lower MARD than all other BGMSs in the low glucose range. In the overall glucose range (21-496 mg/dL), CN yielded the lowest MAD and MARD values, which were statistically significantly lower in comparison with the other BGMSs. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with other BGMSs, CN demonstrated the lowest mean deviation from the reference value (by MAD and MARD) across multiple glucose ranges.