Literature DB >> 30974988

Laboratory Evaluation of Linearity, Repeatability, and Hematocrit Interference With an Internet-Enabled Blood Glucose Meter.

Filiz Demircik1,2, Valeria Kirsch1,3, Sanja Ramljak2, Mario Vogg4, Anke H Pfützner2, Andreas Pfützner1,2,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent clinical trials, use of the MyGlucoHealth blood glucose meter (BGM) and electronic diary was associated with an unusual reporting pattern of glycemic data and hypoglycemic events. Therefore, the performance of representative BGMs used by the patients was investigated to assess repeatability, linearity, and hematocrit interference in accordance with regulatory guidelines.
METHOD: Ten devices and 6 strip lots were selected using standard randomization and repeatability procedures. Venous heparinized blood was drawn from healthy subjects, immediately aliquoted and adjusted to 5 target blood glucose (BG) ranges for the repeatability and 11 BG concentrations for the linearity tests. For the hematocrit interference test, each sample within 5 target BG ranges was split into 5 aliquots and adjusted to hematocrit levels across the acceptance range. YSI 2300 STAT Plus was used as the laboratory reference method in all experiments.
RESULTS: Measurement repeatability or precision was acceptable across the target BG ranges for all devices and strip lots with coefficient of variation (CV) between 3.4-9.7% (mean: 5.7%). Linearity was shown by a correlation coefficient of .991; however, a positive bias was seen for BG <100 mg/dL (86% measurements did not meet ISO15197:2015 acceptance criteria). Significant hematocrit interference (up to 20%) was observed for BG >100 mg/dL (ISO15197:2015 acceptance criteria: ±10%), while the results were acceptable for BG <100 mg/dL.
CONCLUSIONS: The BGM met repeatability requirements but demonstrated a significant measurement bias in the low BG range. In addition, it failed the ISO15197:2015 criteria for hematocrit interference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood glucose meter; hematocrit interference; linearity; repeatability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30974988      PMCID: PMC6501519          DOI: 10.1177/1932296819841357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  15 in total

1.  Hematocrit interference of blood glucose meters for patient self-measurement.

Authors:  Sanja Ramljak; John Paul Lock; Christina Schipper; Petra B Musholt; Thomas Forst; Martha Lyon; Andreas Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-01-01

2.  Determination of hematocrit interference in blood samples derived from patients with different blood glucose concentrations.

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

3.  Accuracy of five systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose in the hands of adult lay-users and professionals applying ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria and potential insulin dosing errors.

Authors:  Nina Jendrike; Annette Baumstark; Stefan Pleus; Christina Liebing; Ulrike Kamecke; Cornelia Haug; Guido Freckmann
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 2.580

Review 4.  Performance of Cleared Blood Glucose Monitors.

Authors:  David C Klonoff; Priya Prahalad
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-08

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Degludec Compared to Glargine 300 Units/mL in Insulin-Experienced Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Trial Protocol Amendment (NCT03078478).

Authors:  Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Irene Stratton; Lone Nørgård Troelsen; Britta Anker Bak; Lawrence A Leiter
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

6.  System Accuracy Assessment of a Blood Glucose Meter With Wireless Internet Access Associated With Unusual Hypoglycemia Patterns in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner; Filiz Demircik; Valeria Kirsch; Johannes Pfützner; Stephanie Strobl; Mina Hanna; Jan Spatz; Anke H Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

7.  Blood glucose meters employing dynamic electrochemistry are stable against hematocrit interference in a laboratory setting.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner; Petra B Musholt; Christina Schipper; Filiz Demircik; Carina Hengesbach; Frank Flacke; Jochen Sieber; Thomas Forst
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-11-01

8.  Patient acuity exacerbates discrepancy between whole blood and plasma methods through error in molality to molarity conversion: "Mind the gap!".

Authors:  Martha E Lyon; Andrew W Lyon
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 3.281

9.  Bolus Insulin Dose Error Distributions Based on Results From Two Clinical Trials Comparing Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.

Authors:  Scott Pardo; Nancy Dunne; David A Simmons
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-06-12

Review 10.  Interferences and Limitations in Blood Glucose Self-Testing: An Overview of the Current Knowledge.

Authors:  Michael Erbach; Guido Freckmann; Rolf Hinzmann; Bernhard Kulzer; Ralph Ziegler; Lutz Heinemann; Oliver Schnell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-08-22
View more
  4 in total

1.  Postmarket Surveillance of Blood Glucose Monitor Systems Is Needed for Safety of Subjects and Accurate Determination of Effectiveness in Clinical Trials of Diabetes Drugs and Devices.

Authors:  David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

2.  Efficacy and Safety of Degludec Compared to Glargine 300 Units/mL in Insulin-Experienced Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Trial Protocol Amendment (NCT03078478).

Authors:  Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Irene Stratton; Lone Nørgård Troelsen; Britta Anker Bak; Lawrence A Leiter
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

3.  System Accuracy Assessment of a Blood Glucose Meter With Wireless Internet Access Associated With Unusual Hypoglycemia Patterns in Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner; Filiz Demircik; Valeria Kirsch; Johannes Pfützner; Stephanie Strobl; Mina Hanna; Jan Spatz; Anke H Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-04-11

4.  How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

Authors:  Stefano Del Prato
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 10.122

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.