Mary Ellen Warchal-Windham

Accuracy Evaluation of Five Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems: The North American Comparator Trial

Background: This study evaluated differences in accuracy between the CONTOUR® NEXT EZ (EZ) blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) and four other BGMSs [ACCU-CHEK® Aviva (ACAP), FreeStyle Freedom Lite® (FFL), ONE TOUCH® Ultra®2 (OTU2), and TRUEtrack® (TT)]. Methods: Up to three capillary blood samples (N = 393) were collected from 146 subjects with and without diabetes. One sample per subject was tested with fresh (natural) blood; the other samples were glycolyzed to lower blood glucose to <70 mg/dl. Meter results were compared with results from plasma from the same sample tested on a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) 2300 STAT Plus™ glucose analyzer. Blood glucose monitoring system accuracy was compared using mean absolute relative difference (MARD; from laboratory reference method results) and other analyses. Separate analyses on fresh (natural) samples only were conducted to determine potential effects of glycolysis on MARD values of systems utilizing glucose-oxidase-based test strip chemistry. Results: Across the tested glucose range, the EZ had the lowest MARD of 4.7%; the ACAP, FFL, OTU2, and TT had MARD values of 6.3%, 18.3%, 23.4%, and 26.2%, respectively. For samples with glucose concentrations <70 mg/dl, the EZ had the lowest MARD (0.65%), compared with the ACAP (2.5%), FFL (18.3%), OTU2 (22.4%), and TT (33.2%) systems. Conclusions: The EZ had the lowest MARD across the tested glucose ranges when compared with four other BGMSs when all samples were analyzed as well as when natural samples only were analyzed.

Accuracy and User Performance Evaluation of a New, Wireless-enabled Blood Glucose Monitoring System That Links to a Smart Mobile Device.

Background: The new Contour®Plus ONE blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) features an easy-to-use, wireless-enabled blood glucose meter that links to a smart mobile device via Bluetooth® connectivity and can sync with the Contour™ Diabetes app on a smartphone or tablet. Methods: The accuracy of the new BGMS was assessed in 2 studies according to ISO 15197:2013 criteria. In Study 1 (laboratory study), fingertip capillary blood samples from 100 subjects were tested in duplicate using 3 test strip lots. In Study 2 (clinical study), 134 subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes enrolled at 2 clinical sites. BGMS results and YSI analyzer (YSI) reference results were compared for fingertip blood obtained by untrained subjects’ self-testing and for study staff–obtained fingertip, subject palm, and venous results. Results: In Study 1, 99.0% (594/600) of combined results for all 3 test strip lots fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 Section 6.3 accuracy criteria. In Study 2, 99.2% (133/134) of subject-obtained capillary fingertip results, 99.2% (133/134) of study staff–obtained fingertip results, 99.2% (125/126) of subject-obtained palm results, and 100% (132/132) of study staff–obtained venous results met ISO 15197:2013 Section 8 accuracy criteria. Moreover, 95.5% (128/134) of subject-obtained fingertip self-test results were within ±10 mg/dl (±0.6 mmol/L) or ±10% of the YSI reference result. Questionnaire results showed that most subjects found the BGMS easy to use. Conclusions: The BGMS exceeded ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria both in the laboratory and in a clinical setting when used by untrained subjects with diabetes.

A New, Wireless-enabled Blood Glucose Monitoring System That Links to a Smart Mobile Device: Accuracy and User Performance Evaluation:

Background: These studies investigated the accuracy of the new Contour®Next ONE blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) that is designed to sync with the Contour™ Diabetes app on a smartphone or tablet. Methods: A laboratory study tested fingertip capillary blood samples from 100 subjects in duplicate using 3 test strip lots, based on ISO 15197:2013 Section 6.3 analytical accuracy standards. A clinical study assessed accuracy per ISO 15197:2013 Section 8 criteria. Subjects with (n = 333) or without (n = 43) diabetes and who had not used the BGMS previously were enrolled. Each subject performed a self-test using the BGMS, which was repeated by a site staff member. Alternate site tests and venipunctures were also performed for analysis. A questionnaire was provided to assess user feedback on ease of use. Results: In the laboratory study, 100% (600/600) of combined results for all 3 test strip lots met ISO 15197:2013 Section 6.3 accuracy criteria. In the clinical study, among subjects with diabetes, 99.4% (327/329) of subject self-test results, 99.7% (331/332) of results obtained by study staff, 97.2% (309/318) of subject palm results, and 100% (330/330) of venous results met ISO 15197:2013 Section 8 accuracy criteria. Moreover, 97.6% (321/329) of subject self-test results were within ±10 mg/dl (±0.6 mmol/L) or ±10% of the YSI reference result. Questionnaire results indicated that most subjects considered the system easy to use. Conclusions: The BGMS exceeded ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria in the laboratory and in a clinical setting.