Accuracy Evaluation of CONTOUR(®)PLUS Compared With Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems

Nancy Dunne, Maria T Viggiani, Scott Pardo, Cynthia Robinson, Joan Lee Parkes, Nancy Dunne, Maria T Viggiani, Scott Pardo, Cynthia Robinson, Joan Lee Parkes

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 5 blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs; CONTOUR(®)PLUS [CP], Accu-Chek(®) Active [ACA], Accu-Chek(®) Performa [ACP], FreeStyle Freedom™ [FF], OneTouch(®) SelectSimple™ [OTSS]).

Methods: Study staff tested fingerstick samples from 106 subjects aged ≥18 years using the 5 BGMSs. Some samples were modified to achieve blood glucose concentrations throughout the measuring range. The primary endpoint was comparison of the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) from the reference value (Yellow Springs Instruments [YSI]) across the overall tested glucose range. Other endpoints were MARD in the low (≤80 mg/dL [≤4.4 mmol/L]), middle (81-180 mg/dL [4.5-10.0 mmol/L]), and high (>180 mg/dL [>10.0 mmol/L]) glucose ranges, and MARD for unmodified samples in the overall glucose range.

Results: CONTOUR(®)PLUS had a statistically significantly lower MARD than all BGMSs across the overall tested range (27-460 mg/dL [1.5-25.5 mmol/L]) and in the high glucose range. In the low glucose range, CP had a lower MARD than all BGMSs, which was statistically significant except for ACP. For unmodified samples across the overall tested range, CP had a lower MARD than all BGMSs and was statistically significantly lower except for ACA.

Conclusions: CONTOUR(®)PLUS had the lowest mean difference from the reference values (by MARD) when compared with other BGMSs across multiple glucose ranges with modified and unmodified samples.

Funding: Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01714232.

Keywords: Accuracy; MARD; Self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Modified Bland-Altman plots of the difference of BGMS results from laboratory reference results for a CP, b ACA, c ACP, d FF, and e OTSS. BGMS blood glucose monitoring system, CP CONTOUR®PLUS, ACA Accu-Chek® Active, ACP Accu-Chek® Performa, FF FreeStyle Freedom™, OTSS OneTouch® SelectSimple™, YSI Yellow Springs Instruments. Dashed lines ±15 mg/dL (±0.8 mmol/L) or ±15% of the reference result for samples with YSI glucose concentrations <100 mg/dL (<5.6 mmol/L) and ≥100 mg/dL (≥5.6 mmol/L), respectively

References

    1. Karter AJ, Ackerson LM, Darbinian JA, D’Agostino RB, Jr, Ferrara A, Liu J, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels and glycemic control: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes Registry. Am J Med. 2001;111:1–9. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00742-2.
    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:S11–S66. doi: 10.2337/dc13-S011.
    1. Bode BW. The accuracy and interferences in self-monitoring of blood glucose. US Endocr Rev. 2007;2:46–48.
    1. Hellman R. Glucose meter inaccuracy and the impact on the care of patients. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28:207–209. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2271.
    1. Klonoff DC, Blonde L, Cembrowski G, Chacra AR, Charpentier G, Colagiuri S, et al. Consensus report: the current role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1529–1548. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500630.
    1. Walsh J, Roberts R, Vigersky RA, Schwartz F. New criteria for assessing the accuracy of blood glucose monitors meeting, October 28, 2011. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6:466–474. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600236.
    1. Rebel A, Rice MA, Fahy BG. Accuracy of point-of-care glucose measurements. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6:396–411. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600228.
    1. Brownlee M, Hirsch IB. Glycemic variability: a hemoglobin A1c-independent risk factor for diabetic complications. JAMA. 2006;295:1707–1708. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1707.
    1. Hirsch IB, Bode BW, Childs BP, Close KL, Fisher WA, Gavin JR, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in insulin- and non-insulin-using adults with diabetes: consensus recommendations for improving SMBG accuracy, utilization, and research. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10:419–439. doi: 10.1089/dia.2008.0104.
    1. Budiman ES, Samant N, Resch A. Clinical implications and economic impact of accuracy differences among commercially available blood glucose monitoring systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7:365–380. doi: 10.1177/193229681300700213.
    1. International Organization for Standardization . ISO 15197:2013(E): In vitro diagnostic test systems—Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2013.
    1. Parkes JL, Slatin SL, Pardo S, Ginsberg BH. A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:1143–1148. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.8.1143.
    1. International Organization for Standardization . ISO 15197:2003(E): In vitro diagnostic test systems—Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2003.
    1. Baumstark A, Pleus S, Schmid C, Link M, Haug C, Freckmann G. 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;6:1076–1086. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600511.
    1. Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, Pleus S, Link M, Haug C. 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;6:1060–1075. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600510.
    1. Brazg RL, Klaff LJ, Parkin CG. Performance variability of seven commonly used self-monitoring of blood glucose systems: clinical considerations for patients and providers. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7:144–152. doi: 10.1177/193229681300700117.
    1. Pfutzner A. Variability of blood glucose meters for patient self-testing: analysis of the article by Brazg and coauthors. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7:153–155. doi: 10.1177/193229681300700118.
    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;7:1071–1083.
    1. Parkes JL, Harrison B, Pardo S. Are blood glucose meters for home use acceptable for making appropriate diabetes management decisions? Diabetes Manag. 2013;3:5–8. doi: 10.2217/dmt.12.69.
    1. Ginsberg BH. Factors affecting blood glucose monitoring: sources of errors in measurement. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3:903–913. doi: 10.1177/193229680900300438.
    1. Neese JW, Duncan P, Bayse D, et al. Development and evaluation of a hexokinase/glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase procedure for use as a national glucose reference method. HEW Publication No. (CDC) 77-8330. HEW. USPHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1976.
    1. Long AN, Dagogo-Jack S. Comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension: mechanisms and approach to target organ protection. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:244–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00434.x.
    1. Shamseddeen H, Getty JZ, Hamdallah IN, Ali MR. Epidemiology and economic impact of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Surg Clin N Am. 2011;91:1163–72, vii.
    1. World Health Organization . Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
    1. International Diabetes Federation. Global diabetes plan. 2011–2021. . Accessed Nov 12, 2012.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, Beck RW, Bissen J, Buckingham B, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15:198–211. doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0051.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, Hinnen DA, Parkin CG, Jelsovsky Z, et al. A structured self-monitoring of blood glucose approach in type 2 diabetes encourages more frequent, intensive, and effective physician interventions: results from the STeP study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13:797–802. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0073.
    1. Franciosi M, Lucisano G, Pellegrini F, Cantarello A, Consoli A, Cucco L, et al. ROSES: role of self-monitoring of blood glucose and intensive education in patients with type 2 diabetes not receiving insulin. A pilot randomized clinical trial. Diabet Med. 2011;28:789–796. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03268.x.
    1. Klaff LJ, Brazg R, Hughes K, Tideman AM, Schachner HC, Stenger P, et al. Accuracy evaluation of Contour Next compared with five blood glucose monitoring systems across a wide range of blood glucose concentrations occurring in a clinical research setting. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17:8–15. doi: 10.1089/dia.2014.0069.
    1. Hones J, Muller P, Surridge N. The technology behind glucose meters: test strips. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10:S-10–S-26.
    1. Heller A, Feldman B. Electrochemical glucose sensors and their applications in diabetes management. Chem Rev. 2008;108:2482–2505. doi: 10.1021/cr068069y.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅