System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015

Stefan Pleus, Annette Baumstark, Nina Jendrike, Jochen Mende, Manuela Link, Eva Zschornack, Cornelia Haug, Guido Freckmann, Stefan Pleus, Annette Baumstark, Nina Jendrike, Jochen Mende, Manuela Link, Eva Zschornack, Cornelia Haug, Guido Freckmann

Abstract

Objective: Accuracy of 18 current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) available in Europe was evaluated applying criteria adapted from EN ISO 15197:2015 with one reagent system lot. BGMS were selected based on market research data.

Research design and methods: The BGMS ABRA, Accu-Chek Guide, AURUM, CareSens Dual, CERA-CHEK 1CODE, ContourNext One, eBsensor, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, GL50 evo, GlucoCheck GOLD, GlucoMen areo 2K, GluNEO, MyStar DoseCoach, OneTouch Verio Flex, Pic GlucoTest, Rightest GM700S, TRUEyou, and WaveSense JAZZ Wireless were tested using capillary blood from 100 different subjects and assessing the percentage of results within ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) or 15% of comparison method results for BG concentrations below or above 100 mg/dL (5.55 mmol/L), respectively. In addition, the minimal deviation from comparison method results within which ≥95% of results of the respective BGMS were found was calculated.

Results: In total, 14 BGMS had ≥95% of results within ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) or ±15% and 3 BGMS had ≥95% of results within ±10 mg/dL (0.55 mmol/L) or ±10% of the results obtained with the comparison method. The smallest deviation from comparison method results within which ≥95% of results were found was ±7.7 mg/dL (0.43 mmol/L) or ±7.7%; the highest deviation was ±19.7 mg/dL (1.09 mmol/L) or ±19.7%.

Conclusions: This accuracy evaluation shows that not all CE-labeled BGMS fulfill accuracy requirements of ISO 15197 reliably and that there is considerable variation even among BGMS fulfilling these criteria. This safety-related information should be taken into account by patients and healthcare professionals when making therapy decisions.

Trial registration number: NCT03737188.

Keywords: accuracy; blood glucose monitors; blood glucose self-monitoring; health care research.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: GF is general manager of the IDT, which carries out clinical studies on the evaluation of BG meters and medical devices for diabetes therapy on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. GF/IDT have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees from Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, LifeScan, Menarini Diagnostics, Metronom Health, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Sensile, and Ypsomed. SP, AB, NJ, JM, ML, EZ, and CH are employees of IDT; no competing financial interests exist.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Difference plots for 18 blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) (n=200 for each difference plot) when evaluated against the manufacturer’s reference measurement procedure. Red/green solid lines: system accuracy criterion A in accordance to ISO 15197, ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L)/±15% (green lines were used if accuracy criterion a was fulfilled, red lines were used if accuracy criterion a was not fulfilled). Gray solid lines: accuracy limits of ±10 mg/dL (0.56 mmol/L)/±10%. Blue dashed lines: minimal deviation from the reference measurement procedure’s results within which ≥95% of results of the respective BGMS were found. For system l, no information about the manufacturer’s reference measurement procedure was available at the time of manuscript submission. Based on literature research and the investigator’s experience regarding reliability of measurement results, the hexokinase (HK)-based procedure was assigned as primary reference measurement procedure for system accuracy evaluation. If values were found outside the y-axis limits of ±80 mg/dL, a label was added to the upper or lower left corner of the BGMS’ subgraph and arrows indicate at which concentrations these values were found. GOD, glucose oxidase.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Minimal deviation of measurement results obtained with the tested blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) (n=200 for each BGMS) from the respective manufacturer’s reference measurement procedure’s measurement results containing at least 95% of values (blue dashed lines; represented by blue funnels in figure 1A and B). For system l, no information about the manufacturer’s reference measurement procedure was available at the time of manuscript submission. Based on literature research and the investigator’s experience regarding reliability of measurement results, the hexokinase (HK)-based procedure was assigned as primary reference measurement procedure for system accuracy evaluation. Green/red solid lines: accuracy limits of ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L)/±15% (green lines were used if accuracy criterion a was fulfilled, red lines were used if accuracy criterion a was not fulfilled). Gray solid lines: accuracy limits of ±10 mg/dL (0.56 mmol/L)/±10%. BGMS with HK as manufacturer’s reference measurement procedure are marked with a blue open circle on the x-axis.

References

    1. Blonde L, Karter AJ. Current evidence regarding the value of self-monitored blood glucose testing. Am J Med 2005;118:20–6. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.07.053
    1. IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes: recommendations for standard, comprehensive, and minimal care. Diabet Med 2006;23:579–93.
    1. Rodbard HW, Blonde L, Braithwaite SS, et al. . American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the management of diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract 2007;13 Suppl 1:1–68. 10.4158/EP.13.S1.1
    1. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, et al. . The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–86. 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401
    1. Lagarde WH, Barrows FP, Davenport ML, et al. . Continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Pediatr Diabetes 2006;7:159–64. 10.1111/j.1399-543X.2006.00162.x
    1. Bergenstal RM, Gavin JR. The role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the care of people with diabetes: report of a global consensus conference. Am J Med 2005;118:1–6. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.07.055
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, et al. . Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1c levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the structured testing program study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:262–7. 10.2337/dc10-1732
    1. Kempf K, Heinemann L. Dynamic electrochemistry: an innovative method for high-quality blood glucose monitoring. Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2012;7:121–6.
    1. Rao A, Wiley M, Iyengar S, et al. . Individuals achieve more accurate results with meters that are codeless and employ dynamic electrochemistry. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:145–50. 10.1177/193229681000400118
    1. Rice MJ. Dynamic electrochemistry: a step in the right direction. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1176–8. 10.1177/193229681100500521
    1. International Organization for Standardization In vitro diagnostic test systems—requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus ISO; 2013.
    1. Freckmann G, Baumstark A, Jendrike N, et al. . System accuracy evaluation of 27 blood glucose monitoring systems according to DIN EN ISO 15197. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12:221–31. 10.1089/dia.2009.0128
    1. Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, et al. . System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:1060–75. 10.1177/193229681200600510
    1. Hasslacher C, Kulozik F, Platten I. Analytical performance of glucose monitoring systems at different blood glucose ranges and analysis of outliers in a clinical setting. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014;8:466–72. 10.1177/1932296814522804
    1. Freckmann G, Link M, Schmid C, et al. . System accuracy evaluation of different blood glucose monitoring systems following ISO 15197:2013 by using two different comparison methods. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:635–48. 10.1089/dia.2015.0085
    1. International Organization for Standardization In vitro diagnostic medical devices—Measurement of quantities in biological samples—Metrological traceability of values assigned to calibrators and control materials; 2003: 2003.
    1. Revision of the “Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations—Rili-BAEK” (unauthorized translation). LaboratoriumsMedizin 2015;39:26–69. 10.1515/labmed-2014-0046
    1. Astles JR, Sedor FA, Toffaletti JG. Evaluation of the YSI 2300 glucose analyzer: algorithm-corrected results are accurate and specific. Clin Biochem 1996;29:27–31. 10.1016/0009-9120(95)02010-1
    1. Jeanny G, Hope P. Surveillance of the system accuracy of two systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose after market approval. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016;10:240–1. 10.1177/1932296815608871
    1. Baumstark A, Pleus S, Jendrike N, et al. . Proof of concept study to assess the influence of oxygen partial pressure in capillary blood on SMBG measurements. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019;13:1105–11. 10.1177/1932296819833369
    1. Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, et al. . Partial pressure of oxygen in capillary blood samples from the fingertip. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1648–9. 10.1177/193229681300700627
    1. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1986;327:307–10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
    1. Clarke WL. The original Clarke error grid analysis (EGA). Diabetes Technol Ther 2005;7:776–9. 10.1089/dia.2005.7.776
    1. Jendrike N, Baumstark A, Pleus S, et al. . Evaluation of four blood glucose monitoring systems for self-testing with built-in insulin dose advisor based on ISO 15197:2013: system accuracy and hematocrit influence. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:303–13. 10.1089/dia.2017.0391
    1. Boettcher C, Dost A, Wudy SA, et al. . Accuracy of blood glucose meters for self-monitoring affects glucose control and hypoglycemia rate in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:275–82. 10.1089/dia.2014.0262
    1. Breton MD, Kovatchev BP. Impact of blood glucose self-monitoring errors on glucose variability, risk for hypoglycemia, and average glucose control in type 1 diabetes: an in silico study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:562–70. 10.1177/193229681000400309
    1. Schrangl P, Reiterer F, Heinemann L, et al. . Limits to the evaluation of the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring systems by clinical trials. Biosensors 2018;8:50 10.3390/bios8020050
    1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. . Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593–603. 10.2337/dci19-0028
    1. Klonoff DC, Parkes JL, Kovatchev BP, et al. . Investigation of the accuracy of 18 marketed blood glucose monitors. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1681–8. 10.2337/dc17-1960
    1. Yu-Fei W, Wei-Ping J, Ming-Hsun W, et al. . Accuracy evaluation of 19 blood glucose monitoring systems manufactured in the Asia-Pacific region: a multicenter study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017;11:953–65. 10.1177/1932296817705143
    1. King F, Ahn D, Hsiao V, et al. . A review of blood glucose monitor accuracy. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018;20:843–56. 10.1089/dia.2018.0232
    1. Caswell M, Frank J, Viggiani MT, et al. . Accuracy and user performance evaluation of a blood glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:152–8. 10.1089/dia.2014.0129
    1. Philis-Tsimikas A, Chang A, Miller L. Precision, accuracy, and user acceptance of the OneTouch SelectSimple blood glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1602–9. 10.1177/193229681100500638
    1. Pfützner A, Schipper C, Ramljak S, et al. . Evaluation of the effects of insufficient blood volume samples on the performance of blood glucose self-test meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1522–9. 10.1177/193229681300700612
    1. Hirose T, Mita T, Fujitani Y, et al. . Glucose monitoring after fruit peeling: pseudohyperglycemia when neglecting hand washing before fingertip blood sampling: wash your hands with tap water before you check blood glucose level. Diabetes Care 2011;34:596–7. 10.2337/dc10-1705
    1. Hortensius J, Slingerland RJ, Kleefstra N, et al. . Self-monitoring of blood glucose: the use of the first or the second drop of blood. Diabetes Care 2011;34:556–60. 10.2337/dc10-1694
    1. Link M, Pleus S, Schmid C, et al. . Accuracy evaluation of three systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose with three different test strip lots following ISO 15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014;8:422–4. 10.1177/1932296813518859
    1. Klonoff DC, Reyes JS. Do currently available blood glucose monitors meet regulatory standards? 1-day public meeting in Arlington, Virginia. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1071–83. 10.1177/193229681300700432
    1. Baumstark A, Pleus S, Schmid C, et al. . Lot-to-lot variability of test strips and accuracy assessment of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to ISO 15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:1076–86. 10.1177/193229681200600511

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever