David C Klonoff1, Joan Lee Parkes2, Boris P Kovatchev3, David Kerr4, Wendy C Bevier4, Ronald L Brazg5, Mark Christiansen6, Timothy S Bailey7, James H Nichols8, Michael A Kohn9. 1. Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Diabetes Research Institute, San Mateo, CA dklonoff@diabetestechnology.org. 2. Joan Lee Parkes Consulting, Inc., Bristol, IN. 3. Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 4. William Sansum Diabetes Center, Santa Barbara, CA. 5. Rainier Clinical Research Center, Inc., Renton, WA. 6. Diablo Clinical Research, Walnut Creek, CA. 7. AMCR Institute, Inc., Escondido, CA. 8. School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 9. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Cleared blood glucose monitors (BGMs) for personal use may not always deliver levels of accuracy currently specified by international and U.S. regulatory bodies. This study's objective was to assess the accuracy of 18 such systems cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration representing approximately 90% of commercially available systems used from 2013 to 2015. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1,035 subjects were recruited to have a capillary blood glucose (BG) level measured on six different systems and a reference capillary sample prepared for plasma testing at a reference laboratory. Products were obtained from consumer outlets and tested in three triple-blinded studies. Each of the three participating clinical sites tested a different set of six systems for each of the three studies in a round-robin. In each study, on average, a BGM was tested on 115 subjects. A compliant BG result was defined as within 15% of a reference plasma value (for BG ≥100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]) or within 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) (for BG <100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). The proportion of compliant readings in each study was compared against a predetermined accuracy standard similar to, but more lenient than, current regulatory standards. Other metrics of accuracy included the overall compliance proportion; the proportion of extreme outlier readings differing from the reference value by >20%; modified Bland-Altman analysis including average bias, coefficient of variation, and 95% limits of agreement; and proportion of readings with no clinical risk as determined by the Surveillance Error Grid. RESULTS: The different accuracy metrics produced almost identical BGM rankings. Six of the 18 systems met the predetermined accuracy standard in all three studies, 5 systems met it in two studies, and 3 met it in one study. Four BGMs did not meet the accuracy standard in any of the three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Cleared BGMs do not always meet the level of analytical accuracy currently required for regulatory clearance. This information could assist patients, professionals, and payers in choosing products and regulators in evaluating postclearance performance.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Cleared blood glucose monitors (BGMs) for personal use may not always deliver levels of accuracy currently specified by international and U.S. regulatory bodies. This study's objective was to assess the accuracy of 18 such systems cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration representing approximately 90% of commercially available systems used from 2013 to 2015. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1,035 subjects were recruited to have a capillary blood glucose (BG) level measured on six different systems and a reference capillary sample prepared for plasma testing at a reference laboratory. Products were obtained from consumer outlets and tested in three triple-blinded studies. Each of the three participating clinical sites tested a different set of six systems for each of the three studies in a round-robin. In each study, on average, a BGM was tested on 115 subjects. A compliant BG result was defined as within 15% of a reference plasma value (for BG ≥100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]) or within 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) (for BG <100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). The proportion of compliant readings in each study was compared against a predetermined accuracy standard similar to, but more lenient than, current regulatory standards. Other metrics of accuracy included the overall compliance proportion; the proportion of extreme outlier readings differing from the reference value by >20%; modified Bland-Altman analysis including average bias, coefficient of variation, and 95% limits of agreement; and proportion of readings with no clinical risk as determined by the Surveillance Error Grid. RESULTS: The different accuracy metrics produced almost identical BGM rankings. Six of the 18 systems met the predetermined accuracy standard in all three studies, 5 systems met it in two studies, and 3 met it in one study. Four BGMs did not meet the accuracy standard in any of the three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Cleared BGMs do not always meet the level of analytical accuracy currently required for regulatory clearance. This information could assist patients, professionals, and payers in choosing products and regulators in evaluating postclearance performance.
Authors: Naveen K Singh; Partha Ray; Aaron F Carlin; Celestine Magallanes; Sydney C Morgan; Louise C Laurent; Eliah S Aronoff-Spencer; Drew A Hall Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 10.618