Phasor transform to extract glucose and ascorbic acid data in an amperometric sensor

Evaluation of hematocrit interference with MyStar extra and seven competitive devices

In previous studies, meters employing dynamic electrochemistry (DE), have been shown to correct for hematocrit (HCT) interference. This laboratory investigation assessed the HCT stability of MyStar Extra (Sanofi) in comparison to 7 competitive devices (Accu-Chek Aviva Nano & Accu-Chek Performa, Roche Diagnostics; Contour XT and Contour Link, Bayer; FreeStyle Freedom Lite, Abbott; MyLife Pura, Ypsomed; OneTouch Verio Pro, LifeScan). Venous heparinized blood was freshly drawn, immediately aliquoted, and manipulated to contain 3 different blood glucose concentrations (50-80 mg/dL, 150-180 mg/dL, and 350-400 mg/dL) and 5 different HCT levels (20-25%, 30-35%, 40-45%, 50-55%, and 60-65%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure, each of the 15 different samples was measured 8 times with 2 devices and 2 strip lots of each meter (32 measurements/meter/sample). YSI Stat 2300 served as laboratory reference method. Next to determination of the mean absolute relative deviation (MARD), stability to HCT influence was assumed, when less than 10% difference occurred between the highest and lowest mean glucose deviations in relation to HCT over all tested glucose ranges (HIF: hematocrit interference factor). Four of the devices showed stable performance: Contour XT (MARD: 1.3%/HIF: 6.1%), MyStar Extra (4.7%/7.1%), OneTouch Verio Pro (4.5%/7.3%), and Contour Link (6.3%/9.3%). The 4 other meters were influenced by HCT (Accu-Chek Performa: 4.7%/20.9%, Accu-Chek Aviva Nano: 4.5%/22.4%, FreeStyle Freedom Lite: 4.8%/24.5%; MyLife Pura: 6.4%/28.7%). In this study, all meters showed a good accuracy, but only 50% of them, including MyStar Extra, were shown to reliably correct for potential hematocrit influence on the meter results.

Performance of blood glucose meters in compliance with current and future clinical ISO15197 accuracy criteria

Since 2003, blood glucose meters for patient self testing are approved in Europe based on the accuracy performance criteria as defined by the ISO15197 guideline. A new draft ISO guideline is currently under regulatory review, which suggests more strict accuracy acceptance criteria, and which may not be entirely fulfilled by currently commercialized blood glucose meter systems. In order to investigate the compliance of BG*Star and iBG*Star and several other blood glucose meters with the new draft ISO guideline, we performed a post-hoc analysis of data obtained from a recently performed ISO-conforming clinical accuracy performance study. This study was performed with 106 patients, clinically presenting with blood glucose levels distributed over the entire measurement range and in line with the glucose distribution requirements as demanded by the guideline. The YSI 2300 STAT Plus analyzer (glucose oxidase) served as reference method. While all tested meters had been in a high degree of compliance with the current ISO criteria, performance was lower when analyzed in accordance with the new acceptance criteria (95% of readings have to be within ±15 mg/dL for values <100 mg/dL, and within ±15% for values ≥100 mg/dL). The following meters met the new criteria: Accu-Chek Aviva (95.5%/98.6%), BG*Star (98.5%/97.3%), iBG*Star (98.5%/97.3%), FreeStyle Freedom Lite (95.5%/96.6%), and OneTouch Ultra2 (95.5%/96.5%). One meter failed with low blood glucose values (Contour: 90.9%/95.9%). In conclusion, BG*Star and iBG*Star and several other branded meters met the new draft ISO15197 acceptance criteria, when tested in accordance with the instructions for use and with the ISO accuracy testing protocol in a clinical setting.

Blood glucose meters employing dynamic electrochemistry are stable against hematocrit interference in a laboratory setting

BACKGROUND

Hematocrit (HCT) is known to be a confounding factor that interferes with many blood glucose (BG) measurement technologies, resulting in wrong readings. Dynamic electrochemistry has been identified as one possible way to correct for these potential deviations. The purpose of this laboratory investigation was to assess the HCT stability of four BG meters known to employ dynamic electrochemistry (BGStar and iBGStar, Sanofi; Wavesense Jazz, AgaMatrix; Wellion Linus, MedTrust) in comparison with three other devices (GlucoDock, Medisana; OneTouch Verio Pro, LifeScan; FreeStyle Freedom InsuLinx, Abbott-Medisense).

METHODS

Venous heparinized blood was immediately aliquoted after draw and manipulated to contain three different BG concentrations (60-90, 130-160, and 280-320 mg/dl) and five different HCT levels (25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, and 60%). After careful oxygenation to normal blood oxygen pressure, each of the resulting 15 different samples was measured six times with three devices and three strip lots of each meter. The YSI Stat 2300 served as laboratory reference method. Stability to HCT influence was assumed when less than 10% difference occurred between the highest and lowest mean glucose deviations in relation to HCT concentrations [hematocrit interference factor (HIF)].

RESULTS

Five of the investigated self-test meters showed a stable performance with the different HCT levels tested in this investigation: BGStar (HIF 4.6%), iBGStar (6.6%), Wavesense Jazz (4.1%), Wellion Linus (8.5%), and OneTouch Verio Pro (6.2%). The two other meters were influenced by HCT (FreeStyle InsuLinx 17.8%; GlucoDock 46.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, meters employing dynamic electrochemistry, as used in the BGStar and iBGStar devices, were shown to correct for potential HCT influence on the meter results. Dynamic electrochemistry appears to be an effective way to handle this interfering condition.

Evaluation of the effects of insufficient blood volume samples on the performance of blood glucose self-test meters

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.

Clinical assessment of the accuracy of blood glucose measurement devices

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.

Dynamic electrochemistry corrects for hematocrit interference on blood glucose determinations with patient self-measurement devices

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.