Search

Background: Devices employing electrochemistry-based correction algorithms (EBCAs) are optimized for patient use and require special handling procedures when tested in the laboratory. This study investigated the impact of sample handling on the results of an accuracy and hematocrit interference test performed with BG*Star, iBG*Star; OneTouch Verio Pro and Accu-Chek Aviva versus YSI Stat 2300., Methods: Venous heparinized whole blood was manipulated to contain three different blood glucose concentrations (64-74, 147-163, and 313-335 mg/dL) and three different hematocrit levels (30%, 45%, and 60%). Sample preparation was done by either a very EBCA-experienced laboratory testing team (A), a group experienced with other meters but not EBCAs (B), or a team inexperienced with meter testing (C). Team A ensured physiological pO 2 and specific sample handling requirements, whereas teams B and C did not consider pO 2 . Each sample was tested four times with each device. In a separate experiment, a different group similar to group B performed the experiment before (D1) and after (D2) appropriate sample handling training., Results: Mean absolute deviation from YSI was calculated as a metrix for all groups and devices. Mean absolute relative difference was 4.3% with team A (B: 9.2%, C: 5.2%). Team B had much higher readings and team C produced 100% of "sample composition" errors with high hematocrit levels. In a separate experiment, group D showed a result similar to group B before the training and improved significantly when considering the sample handling requirements (D1: 9.4%, D2: 4.5%, P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Laboratory performance testing of EBCA devices should only be performed by trained staff considering specific sample handling requirements. The results suggest that healthcare centers should evaluate EBCA-based devices with capillary blood from patients in accordance with the instructions for use to achieve reliable results.

Background: Accuracy of blood glucose readings is (among other things) dependent on the test strip being completely filled with sufficient sample volume. The devices are supposed to display an error message in case of incomplete filling. This laboratory study was performed to test the performance of 31 commercially available devices in case of incomplete strip filling., Methods: Samples with two different glucose levels (60-90 and 300-350 mg/dl) were used to generate three different sample volumes: 0.20 µl (too low volume for any device), 0.32 µl (borderline volume), and 1.20 µl (low but supposedly sufficient volume for all devices). After a point-of-care capillary reference measurement (StatStrip, NovaBiomedical), the meter strip was filled (6x) with the respective volume, and the response of the meters (two devices) was documented (72 determinations/meter type). Correct response was defined as either an error message indicating incomplete filling or a correct reading (±20% compared with reference reading)., Results: Only five meters showed 100% correct responses [BGStar and iBGStar (both Sanofi), ACCU-CHEK Compact+ and ACCU-CHEK Mobile (both Roche Diagnostics), OneTouch Verio (LifeScan)]. The majority of the meters (17) had up to 10% incorrect reactions [predominantly incorrect readings with sufficient volume; Precision Xceed and Xtra, FreeStyle Lite, and Freedom Lite (all Abbott); GlucoCard+ and GlucoMen GM (both Menarini); Contour, Contour USB, and Breeze2 (all Bayer); OneTouch Ultra Easy, Ultra 2, and Ultra Smart (all LifeScan); Wellion Dialog and Premium (both MedTrust); FineTouch (Terumo); ACCU-CHEK Aviva (Roche); and GlucoTalk (Axis-Shield)]. Ten percent to 20% incorrect reactions were seen with OneTouch Vita (LifeScan), ACCU-CHEK Aviva Nano (Roche), OmniTest+ (BBraun), and AlphaChek+ (Berger Med). More than 20% incorrect reactions were obtained with Pura (Ypsomed), GlucoCard Meter and GlucoMen LX (both Menarini), Elite (Bayer), and MediTouch (Medisana)., Conclusions: In summary, partial and incomplete blood filling of glucose meter strips is often associated with inaccurate reading. These findings underline the importance of appropriate patient education on this aspect of blood glucose self-monitoring., (© 2013 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Objective: Self-monitoring of blood glucose is a key element in diabetes management. Accurate and precise performance of blood glucose monitors (BGMs) ensures that valid values are obtained to guide treatment decisions by patients and physicians. BGStar and iBGStar are hand-held BGMs that use dynamic electrochemistry to correct for potential interferences and thereby minimize system errors., Research Design and Methods: A single-center, in vitro diagnostic device performance evaluation with heparinized oxygenated venous blood samples (intra-assay precision) and control solutions (interassay precision) was performed in a laboratory setting, comparing BGStar and iBGStar with 12 competitors., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the coefficient of variation percent (CV%) of the BGMs investigated., Results: In inter-assay precision analyses, all but GlucoMen LX had a CV <5%, and in intra-assay precision analyses, 10 of the 14 devices tested had CV <5%. BGStar and iBGStar had a CV <5% in both the inter- and intra-assay precision analyses. The smallest variation was found in the near-normoglycemic glucose range (5.3 - 8.0 mmol/l) for both BGStar and iBGStar in the inter-assay precision analysis., Conclusions: BGStar and iBGStar were proven to have very good inter-assay and high intra-assay precision, demonstrating low scattering of replicate measurements with both clinical samples and control solutions.

Objectives: Blood glucose meters for patient self-measurement need to comply with the accuracy standards of the ISO 15197 guideline. We investigated the accuracy of the two new blood glucose meters BG*Star and iBG*Star (Sanofi-Aventis) in comparison to four other competitive devices (Accu-Chek Aviva, Roche Diagnostics; FreeStyle Freedom Lite, Abbott Medisense; Contour, Bayer; OneTouch Ultra 2, Lifescan) at different blood glucose ranges in a clinical setting with healthy subjects and patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. BGStar and iBGStar are employ dynamic electrochemistry, which is supposed to result in highly accurate results., Methods: The study was performed on 106 participants (53 female, 53 male, age (mean ± SD): 46 ± 16 years, type 1: 32 patients, type 2: 34 patients, and 40 healthy subjects). Two devices from each type and strips from two different production lots were used for glucose assessment (∼200 readings/meter). Spontaneous glucose assessments and glucose or insulin interventions under medical supervision were applied to perform measurements in the different glucose ranges in accordance with the ISO 15197 requirements. Sample values <50 mg/dL and >400 mg/dL were prepared by laboratory manipulations. The YSI glucose analyzer (glucose oxidase method) served as the standard reference method which may be considered to be a limitation in light of glucose hexokinase-based meters., Results: For all devices, there was a very close correlation between the glucose results compared to the YSI reference method results. The correlation coefficients were r = 0.995 for BGStar and r = 0.992 for iBGStar (Aviva: 0.995, Freedom Lite: 0.990, Contour: 0.993, Ultra 2: 0.990). Error-grid analysis according to Parkes and Clarke revealed both 100% of the readings to be within the clinically acceptable areas (Clarke: A + B with BG*Star (100 + 0), Aviva (97 + 3), and Contour (97 + 3); and 99.5% with iBG*Star (97.5 + 2), Freedom Lite (98 + 1.5), and Ultra 2 (97.5 + 2))., Conclusions: This study demonstrated the very high accuracy of BG*Star, iBG*Star, and the competitive blood glucose meters in a clinical setting.

Background: It has been demonstrated that dynamic electrochemistry can be used to correct blood glucose measurement results for potentially interfering conditions, such as humidity, hematocrit (HCT) variations, and ascorbic acid. The purpose of this laboratory investigation was to assess the potential influence of hematocrit variations on a variety of blood glucose meters applying different measurement technologies., Methods: Venous heparinized whole blood was drawn, immediately aliquoted, and manipulated to contain three different blood glucose concentrations (80, 155, and 310 mg/dl) and five different hematocrit levels (25%, 37%, 45%, 52%, and 60%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure, each of the resulting 15 different samples was measured 8 times with the following devices: BGStar, Contour, Accu-Chek Aviva, Accu-Chek Aviva Nano, Breeze 2, Precision Xceed, OneTouch Ultra 2, OneTouch Verio, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, Glucocard G+, GlucoMen LX, GlucoMen GM, and StatStrip [point-of-care (POC) device]. Cobas (Roche Diagnostics, glucose hexokinase method) served as laboratory plasma reference method. Stability to hematocrit influence was assumed when less than 10% bias occurred between the highest and lowest hematocrit levels when analyzing mean deviations for all three glucose concentrations., Results: Besides the POC StatStrip device, which is known to measure and correct for hematocrit (resulting in <2% bias), four self-test meters also showed a stable performance in this investigation: dynamic electrochemistry, BGStar (8%), and static electrochemistry, Contour (6%), Glucocard G+ (2%), and OneTouch Verio (6%). The other meters failed this test: colorimetry, FreeStyle Freedom Lite (16%), and static electrochemistry, Accu-Chek Aviva (23%), Accu-Chek Aviva Nano (18%), Breeze 2 (36%), OneTouch Ultra 2 (34%), Precision Xceed (34%), GlucoMen LX (24%), and GlucoMen GM (31%)., Conclusions: As hematocrit variations occur in daily routine (e.g., because of smoking, exercise, hypermenorrhea, pregnancy, stay in mountains, and hemodialysis), our results may encourage use of meters with stable performance under these conditions. Dynamic electrochemistry as used in the BGStar device (sanofi-aventis) appears to be an effective technology to correct for potential hematocrit influence on the meter results., (© 2011 Diabetes Technology Society.)