Accuracy evaluation of five blood glucose monitoring systems obtained from the pharmacy: a European multicenter study with 453 subjects.

BACKGROUND This multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the performance of five recently introduced blood glucose (BG) monitoring (BGM) devices under daily routine conditions in comparison with the YSI (Yellow Springs, OH) 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. METHODS Five hundred one diabetes patients with experience in self-monitoring of BG were randomized to use three of five different BGM devices (FreeStyle Lite® [Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, CA], FreeStyle Freedom Lite [Abbott Diabetes Care], OneTouch® UltraEasy® [LifeScan Inc., Milpitas, CA], Accu-Chek® Aviva [Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany], and Contour® [Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany]) in a daily routine setting. All devices and strips were purchased from local regular distribution sources (pharmacies, four strip lots per device). The patients performed the finger prick and the glucose measurement on their own. In parallel, a healthcare professional performed the glucose assessment with the reference method (YSI 2300 Stat Plus). The primary objective was the comparison of the mean absolute relative differences (MARD). Secondary objectives were compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) accuracy criteria under these routine conditions and Clarke and Parkes Error Grid analyses. RESULTS MARD ranged from 4.9% (FreeStyle Lite) to 9.7% (OneTouch UltraEasy). The ISO 15197:2003 requirements were fulfilled by the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%), FreeStyle Freedom Lite (97.5%), and Accu-Chek Aviva (97.0%), but not by the Contour (92.4%) and OneTouch UltraEasy (91.1%). The number of values in Zone A of the Clarke Error Grid analysis was highest for the FreeStyle Lite (98.8%) and lowest for the OneTouch Ultra Easy (90.4%). CONCLUSIONS FreeStyle Lite, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, and Accu-Chek Aviva performed very well in this study with devices and strips purchased through regular distribution channels, with the FreeStyle Lite achieving the lowest MARD in this investigation.

[1]  E. Ipp,et al.  Accuracy of Plasma Glucose Measurements in the Hypoglycemic Range , 1994, Diabetes Care.

[2]  Gunn B B Kristensen,et al.  Standardized evaluation of nine instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose. , 2008, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[3]  W. Bablok,et al.  A New Biometrical Procedure for Testing the Equality of Measurements from Two Different Analytical Methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in Clinical Chemistry, Part I , 1983, Journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry. Zeitschrift fur klinische Chemie und klinische Biochemie.

[4]  P. Twomey,et al.  Plasma glucose measurement with the Yellow Springs Glucose 2300 STAT and the Olympus AU640 , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[5]  Ming-Hsun Wu,et al.  Accuracy and precision evaluation of seven self-monitoring blood glucose systems. , 2011, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[6]  B H Ginsberg,et al.  A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[7]  D. Cox,et al.  Evaluating Clinical Accuracy of Systems for Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose , 1987, Diabetes Care.

[8]  Ronald Brazg,et al.  Performance of a new test strip for freestyle blood glucose monitoring systems. , 2011, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[9]  Guido Freckmann,et al.  System accuracy evaluation of 27 blood glucose monitoring systems according to DIN EN ISO 15197. , 2010, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.