Accuracy Evaluation of Five Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems in Patients from Different Departments

Abstract

Background Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) systems are expected to be accurate and provide reliable results. The international standard ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 15197:2013 is widely accepted for the accuracy evaluation for SMBG systems. Accuracy evaluation was performed for 5 different SMBG systems in patients from multi-departments at the hospital.

Method A total of 120 patients from Changzhou Second People’s Hospital (Changzhou, China) were randomized and enrolled in the study. Accuracy evaluation was performed for 5 different SMBG systems: Gold AQ (Sinocare), Freestyle Optium Xceed (Abbott), Contour TS (Bayer), OneTouch Ultra (J&J) and Accu-Chek Performa (Roche). For each system, comparison measurements were performed with YSI 2300 STAT PLUS Glucose and Lactate Analyzer and Roche Cobas 8000 Modular Analyzer.

Results All 5 systems showed that 100% of results fall within consensus error grid Zones A and B. Compared with YSI 2300 or Roche Cobas 8000 Modular Analyzer, Gold AQ system showed the highest accuracy. The linearity analysis also showed that Gold AQ had the highest correlation coefficient.

Conclusion Compared with other SMBG systems, Gold AQ Glucose Monitoring System manufactured by Sinocare Inc. had the highest accuracy in measuring blood glucose level in patients from multi-departments at this hospital.

Key words

glucose monitoring system - glucose - accuracy - stability

• References

• 1 Harris MI. Diabetes in America: Epidemiology and scope of the problem. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: C11-C14
• 2 Narayan KM, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ. et al. Lifetime risk for diabetes mellitus in the United States. JAMA 2003; 290: 1884-1890
• 3 Narayan KM, Boyle JP, Geiss LS. et al. Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: U.S.,2005–2050. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2114-2116
• 4 Yang W, Lu J, Weng J. et al. Prevalence of diabetes among men and women in China. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1090
• 5 UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853
• 6 Nordin C, Amiruddin R, Rucker L. et al. Diabetes and stress hyperglycemia associated with myocardial infarctions at an urban municipalhospital: Prevalence and effect on mortality. Cardiol Rev 2005; 13: 223-230
• 7 Bonamichi BD, Parente EB, Campos AC. et al. Hyperglycemia effect on coronary disease in patients with metabolic syndrome evaluated by intracoronary ultrasonography. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0171733; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171733.
• 8 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: 262-267
• 9 Bosi E, Scavini M, Ceriello A. et al. Intensive structured self-monitoring of blood glucose and glycemic control in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: The PRISMA randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2013; 36: 2887-2894
• 10 American Diabetes Association. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care 2016; 39: S39-S46
• 11 International Organization for Standardization. In vitro diagnostic test systems—requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus ISO 15197 2013
• 12 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: 221-231
• 13 Freckmann G, Baumstark A, Schmid C. et al. Evaluation of 12 blood glucose monitoring systems for selftesting: System accuracy and measurement reproducibility. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014; 16: 113-122
• 14 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: 1076-1086
• 15 Bernstein R, Parkes JL, Goldy A. et al. A new test strip technology platform for self-monitoring of blood glucose. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013; 7: 1386-1399
• 16 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: 466-472
• 17 Kristensen GB, Monsen G, Skeie S. et al. Standardized evaluation of nine instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Technol Ther 2008; 10: 467-477
• 18 Halldorsdottir S, Warchal-Windham ME, Wallace JF. et al. Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems: The North American Comparator Trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013; 7: 1294-1304
• 19 Zueger T, Schuler V, Stettler C. et al. Assessment of three frequently used blood glucose monitoring devices in clinical routine. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13631
• 20 Pleus S, Schmid C, Link M. et al. Accuracy assessment of two novel systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose following ISO 15197:2013. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014; 8: 906-908
• 21 Rebel A, Rice MA, Fahy BG. Accuracy of point-of-care glucose measurements. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012; 6: 396-411
• 22 Kumar G, Sng BL, Kumar S. Correlation of capillary and venous blood glucometry with laboratory determination. Prehosp EmergCare 2004; 8: 378-383