Scott Pardo

Technical Aspects of the Parkes Error Grid

Background: The Parkes error grid, which was developed in 1994, presented performance zones for blood glucose (BG) monitors with borders that were not mathematically specified at the time the grid was published. Methods: In this article, we (1) review the history of the Parkes error grid, (2) present the never-before-published exact coordinates and specifications of the grid so that others may produce an exact replica of the original grid, and (3) discuss our suggestions how this metric should be applied. Results: The new ISO15197:2013 guideline for system accuracy assessment of BG meters for patient self-measurement incorporates use of this metric for defining acceptable accuracy of BG monitors. It is expected that, for regulatory purposes, this document will stipulate that the error grid version for type 1 diabetes should be applied with the caveat that only the A zone represents acceptable accuracy. Conclusions: It remains to be seen by how much the new error grid, which is currently being developed by the Food and Drug Administration/Diabetes Technology Society/American Diabetes Association/The Endocrine Society/Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, will deviate from the Parkers error grid.

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.

Evaluation of an Over-the-Counter Glycated Hemoglobin (A1C) Test Kit:

Background: Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) monitoring is an integral component of diabetes management. This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the A1CNow® SELFCHECK device when used by lay users and health care professionals (HCPs) to measure A1C. Methods: Subjects performed two A1CNow SELFCHECK finger-stick self-tests followed by a finger-stick test of the subjects blood by a HCP. The primary endpoint assessed accuracy of the subject and HCP A1CNow SELFCHECK readings. Secondary endpoints included precision, comprehension of instructional material (written material ± DVD), and product satisfaction. For accuracy comparison, a venous blood sample was drawn from each subject and tested by laboratory (TOSOH) analysis. Subject comprehension of product instructional material was evaluated via first-time failure (FTF) rate as recorded by the HCP, and subject satisfaction was assessed through written survey. Results: A total of 110 subjects with (n = 93) and without (n = 17) diabetes participated. Of 177 subject A1C values, 165 (93.2%) were within the acceptable range of ±13.5% of the laboratory reference value and considered accurate. Regression analysis showed good correlation of subject values to laboratory and HCP results (R 2 = 0.93 for both). The average within-subject coefficient of variation was 4.57% (n = 74). The FTF rates with and without instructional DVD were 11.3% (n = 56) and 39.6% (n = 54), respectively. Subjects with diabetes/prediabetes overwhelmingly indicated that they were “very” to “extremely” likely (93.5%) to discuss their home A1C results with their HCP. Conclusions: Lay users found the A1CNow SELFCHECK easy to use, and both lay users and HCPs were able to measure A1C accurately.

Evaluation of a combined blood glucose monitoring and gaming system (Didget®) for motivation in children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes†

The purpose of this study was to assess the performance and acceptability of a blood glucose meter coupled with a gaming system for children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes. During an in‐clinic visit, duplicate blood samples were tested by subjects (N = 147; aged 5–24 yr) and health care providers (HCPs) to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the Didget® system. Subjects meter results were compared against Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) reference results and HCP results using least squares regression and error grid analyses. Precision was measured by average within‐subject and within‐HCP coefficient of variation (CV). During the home‐use component of this study, subjects (n = 58) tested their blood glucose at least two to three times daily for 3–5 d to evaluate routine use of the system. Subjects meter results showed significant correlations with both YSI (r2 = 0.94; p < 0.001 for regression slope) and HCP results (r2 = 0.96; p < 0.001). Average within‐subject and within‐HCP CVs were 5.9 and 7.2%, respectively. Overall satisfaction was assessed by subjects, their parents or guardians, and HCP surveys. Subject satisfaction with the Didget® system was good to excellent; most subjects found the system easy to use, motivating, and helpful for building good blood glucose monitoring habits. Most HCPs agreed that the system fulfilled a need in diabetes management. In conclusion, the Didget® system was precise and clinically accurate in the hands of children, adolescents, and young adults with type 1 diabetes.

Predicted Blood Glucose from Insulin Administration Based on Values from Miscoded Glucose Meters

Objectives: The proper use of many types of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) meters requires calibration to match strip code. Studies have demonstrated the occurrence and impact on insulin dose of coding errors with SMBG meters. This paper reflects additional analyses performed with data from Raine et al. (JDST, 2:205–210, 2007). It attempts to relate potential insulin dose errors to possible adverse blood glucose outcomes when glucose meters are miscoded. Methods: Five sets of glucose meters were used. Two sets of meters were autocoded and therefore could not be miscoded, and three sets required manual coding. Two of each set of manually coded meters were deliberately miscoded, and one from each set was properly coded. Subjects (n = 116) had finger stick blood glucose obtained at fasting, as well as at 1 and 2 hours after a fixed meal (Boost®; Novartis Medical Nutrition U.S., Basel, Switzerland). Deviations of meter blood glucose results from the reference method (YSI) were used to predict insulin dose errors and resultant blood glucose outcomes based on these deviations. Results: Using insulin sensitivity data, it was determined that, given an actual blood glucose of 150–400 mg/dl, an error greater than +40 mg/dl would be required to calculate an insulin dose sufficient to produce a blood glucose of less than 70 mg/dl. Conversely, an error less than or equal to −70 mg/dl would be required to derive an insulin dose insufficient to correct an elevated blood glucose to less than 180 mg/dl. For miscoded meters, the estimated probability to produce a blood glucose reduction to less than or equal to 70 mg/dl was 10.40%. The corresponding probabilities for autocoded and correctly coded manual meters were 2.52% (p < 0.0001) and 1.46% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Furthermore, the errors from miscoded meters were large enough to produce a calculated blood glucose outcome less than or equal to 50 mg/dl in 42 of 833 instances. Autocoded meters produced zero (0) outcomes less than or equal to 50 mg/dl out of 279 instances, and correctly coded manual meters produced 1 of 416. Conclusions: Improperly coded blood glucose meters present the potential for insulin dose errors and resultant clinically significant hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Patients should be instructed and periodically reinstructed in the proper use of blood glucose meters, particularly for meters that require coding.

ROLE OF INJECTION TECHNIQUE IN USE OF INSULIN PENS: PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF A 31-GAUGE, 8-mm INSULIN PEN NEEDLE

OBJECTIVEnTo evaluate the effectiveness, comfort, and ease of use of insulin pen injections with a 31-gauge, 8-mm needle.nnnMETHODSnIn 50 study subjects (24 patients with type 1 insulin-dependent diabetes and 26 insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes), we assessed the delivery of insulin, residual insulin leakage, glycemic control, plunger depression pressure, and perceived pain associated with the B-D 31-gauge, 8-mm pen needles in comparison with the B-D conventional 30-gauge, 8-mm pen needles, while the patient used their own insulin pens (Novo or B-D). The study subjects injected their usual dose of regular and NPH insulin using the 30-gauge, 8-mm needle during the first 3 weeks of the study. This period was followed by two 3-week crossover segments of the study with either needle assigned in random sequence.nnnRESULTSnNo statistically significant differences were noted in glycemic control or perceived pain of injection between the two needles. The interaction between the two needles and the two insulin pen brands on glycemic control was not statistically significant. Plunger depression pressure increased with the increase in the gauge of the needle and with increases in size of dose of injected insulin (P<0.01). B-D pen users reported lower plunger pressure ratings in comparison with Novo pen users (P<0.01), regardless of the needle type and dose range. Both the insulin pen type and the needle type individually had statistically significant (P<0.01) effects on the residual insulin leakage from the needle tip after injection; however, their interaction was not statistically significant. Insulin doses greater than 30 units were associated with increased leakage (P<0.01). As needle retention time decreased, residual insulin leakage from the needle tip after injection increased (P<0.01), regardless of the needle used.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe 31-gauge insulin pen needles are safe and effective for the delivery of insulin. With both 30-gauge and 31-gauge needles, attention to injection technique is essential to ensure complete delivery of insulin, particularly with administration of large doses.

Performance of the CONTOUR® TS Blood Glucose Monitoring System

Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) remains an important component of diabetes management, engendering a need for affordable blood glucose (BG) meters that are accurate, precise, and convenient. The CONTOUR® TS is a BG meter that endeavors to meet this need. It uses glucose dehydrogenase/flavin dinucleotide chemistry, automatic test strip calibration, and autocompensation for hematocrit along with the ease of use that has come to be expected of a modern meter. The objective of this clinical trial was to determine whether the CONTOUR TS system met these criteria. Methods: The system was evaluated at a single clinical site with 106 subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Blood glucose values ranged from 60 to 333 mg/dl over all subjects. Both lay users and health care professionals (HCPs) tested the meters, with test strips from three different lots. Results were compared to a reference analyzer of verified precision and accuracy. Forty-nine of the subjects also participated in a home study of the meter. Lay users learned to use the system without assistance and were surveyed on its use at the end of the study. Results: When used with capillary blood, both subjects and HCPs obtained results that exceeded the International Organization for Standardization 15197:2003 criteria, (i.e., ≥95% of values fell within 20% or 15 mg/dl of the laboratory value for BG levels greater than or less than 75 mg/dl, respectively). Specifically, lay users achieved 97.9% and HCPs 98.6%. When used with venous blood, 99.8% of measurements were within the criteria. All measurements for both capillary and venous blood fell into zones A or B of the Parkes error grid, deemed clinically accurate. Hematocrit was found to have no influence on BG measurements. A large majority of the subjects found the system easy to learn and to use. Conclusions: The CONTOUR TS BG meter system gave accurate and reproducible results with both capillary and venous blood; subjects learned to use the meter system by following the user guide and quick reference guide.

A new test strip technology platform for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

In the management of diabetes, accuracy of devices used for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is critical because SMBG results can affect patient diabetes-related health outcomes. A new blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) platform has been developed that is based on the new CONTOUR® NEXT (CN) test strip. This BGMS platform uses a proprietary electron mediator and algorithm to minimize errors at different steps in the testing process, thus minimizing outliers and significantly improving accuracy from prior-generation blood glucose meter systems. As demonstrated by questionnaire results from clinical studies with the new BGMS platform, accuracy and ease of use are important considerations for people with diabetes and their health care professionals when selecting an SMBG device. This article provides an overview of laboratory studies and clinical trials in the hands of lay users involving the performance of the portfolio of blood glucose meters that uses the new test strip. Each BGMS in the platform, which includes the CONTOUR XT (CONTOUR NEXT EZ in the United States), CONTOUR NEXT LINK, CONTOUR NEXT USB, and CN systems, demonstrated advanced accuracy both in the laboratory and in the hands of subjects (people with diabetes) and trained health care professionals. All systems met and exceeded International Organization for Standardization accuracy criteria (both ISO 15197:2003 and ISO 15197:2013). Each system in the new BGMS platform delivers advanced accuracy, which is essential to people who utilize SMBG for improved management.

Performance Evaluation of Three Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Using ISO 15197: 2013 Accuracy Criteria, Consensus and Surveillance Error Grid Analyses, and Insulin Dosing Error Modeling in a Hospital Setting.

Background: Blood glucose monitoring is an essential component of diabetes management. Inaccurate blood glucose measurements can severely impact patients’ health. This study evaluated the performance of 3 blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS), Contour® Next USB, FreeStyle InsuLinx®, and OneTouch® Verio™ IQ, under routine hospital conditions. Methods: Venous blood samples (N = 236) obtained for routine laboratory procedures were collected at a Spanish hospital, and blood glucose (BG) concentrations were measured with each BGMS and with the available reference (hexokinase) method. Accuracy of the 3 BGMS was compared according to ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria, by mean absolute relative difference (MARD), consensus error grid (CEG) and surveillance error grid (SEG) analyses, and an insulin dosing error model. Results: All BGMS met the accuracy limit criteria defined by ISO 15197:2013. While all measurements of the 3 BGMS were within low-risk zones in both error grid analyses, the Contour Next USB showed significantly smaller MARDs between reference values compared to the other 2 BGMS. Insulin dosing errors were lowest for the Contour Next USB than compared to the other systems. Conclusions: All BGMS fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria and CEG criterion. However, taking together all analyses, differences in performance of potential clinical relevance may be observed. Results showed that Contour Next USB had lowest MARD values across the tested glucose range, as compared with the 2 other BGMS. CEG and SEG analyses as well as calculation of the hypothetical bolus insulin dosing error suggest a high accuracy of the Contour Next USB.

Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose measurement device in patients with diabetes mellitus across the glycemic range.

Background: This glucose clamp study assessed the performance of an electrochemical continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for monitoring levels of interstitial glucose. This novel system does not require use of a trocar or needle for sensor insertion. Method: Continuous glucose monitoring sensors were inserted subcutaneously into the abdominal tissue of 14 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Subjects underwent an automated glucose clamp procedure with four consecutive post-steady-state glucose plateau periods (40 min each): (a) hypoglycemic (50 mg/dl) (b) hyperglycemic (250 mg/dl), (c) second hypoglycemic (50 mg/dl), and (d) euglycemic (90 mg/dl). Plasma glucose results obtained with YSI glucose analyzers were used for sensor calibration. Accuracy was assessed retrospectively for plateau periods and transition states, when glucose levels were changing rapidly (approximately 2 mg/dl/min). Results: Mean absolute percent difference (APD) was lowest during hypoglycemic plateaus (11.68%, 14.15%) and the euglycemic-to-hypoglycemic transition (14.21%). Mean APD during the hyperglycemic plateau was 17.11%; mean APDs were 18.12% and 19.25% during the hypoglycemic-to-hyperglycemic and hyperglycemic-to-hypoglycemic transitions, respectively. Parkes (consensus) error grid analysis (EGA) and rate EGA of the plateaus and transition periods, respectively, yielded 86.8% and 68.6% accurate results (zone A) and 12.1% and 20.0% benign errors (zone B). Continuous EGA yielded 88.5%, 75.4%, and 79.3% accurate results and 8.3%, 14.3%, and 2.4% benign errors for the euglycemic, hyperglycemic, and hypoglycemic transition periods, respectively. Adverse events were mild and unlikely to be device related. Conclusion: This novel CGM system was safe and accurate across the clinically relevant glucose range.