Postmarket Surveillance of Blood Glucose Monitor Systems Is Needed for Safety of Subjects and Accurate Determination of Effectiveness in Clinical Trials of Diabetes Drugs and Devices

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2022

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 3 to November 5, 2022. Meeting topics included (1) the measurement of glucose, insulin, and ketones; (2) virtual diabetes care; (3) metrics for managing diabetes and predicting outcomes; (4) integration of continuous glucose monitor data into the electronic health record; (5) regulation of diabetes technology; (6) digital health to nudge behavior; (7) estimating carbohydrates; (8) fully automated insulin delivery systems; (9) hypoglycemia; (10) novel insulins; (11) insulin delivery; (12) on-body sensors; (13) continuous glucose monitoring; (14) diabetic foot ulcers; (15) the environmental impact of diabetes technology; and (16) spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. A live demonstration of a device that can allow for the recycling of used insulin pens was also presented.

Post-Market Surveillance Assessment of the Clinical Accuracy of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System with an Improved Algorithm for Enhanced Product Performance

BACKGROUND

On-going manufacturer-led post-market surveillance (PMS), assessing the clinical accuracy of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) systems, is critical to substantiate the performance of such products for people with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Batches of Verio test-strip product were randomly and routinely selected over the period from launch of an improved-algorithm product to reporting date and sent to 3 clinic sites for clinician-led accuracy assessment. Accuracy is reported as per recently adopted FDA guidance for BGM systems, EN ISO 15197:2015 and MARD/MAD (Mean absolute relative difference/Mean absolute difference).

RESULTS

Thirty-three individual test-strip batches were evaluated corresponding to 506 unique donors. Accuracy performance - FDA: 98.9% of values within ±15% of comparator; ISO: 99.0% within ±15 mg/dL or ±15% at <100 mg/dL (<5.55 mmol/L) or ≥100 mg/dL (≥5.55 mmol/L) glucose, respectively. Overall MARD was 4.19% with a MARD range of 3.54%-5.73% across all test strip batches.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-market surveillance program demonstrates the new BGM system consistently meets measures of clinical accuracy specified by regulators. This program supports a growing demand by regulators for real-world evidence demonstrating consistent in-market product efficacy as opposed to the current largely passive approach that relies on assessment of reports filed by device users.

Post-Market Surveillance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip Demonstrates No Evidence of Interference on Clinical Accuracy in a Large Cohort of People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Regulations and industry guidance relating to testing for interference in blood glucose monitoring (BGM) systems continue to focus on in vitro laboratory bench tests. Post-market surveillance (PMS) in a clinical setting allows for BGM accuracy assessments to evaluate the impact of real-world exposure to polypharmacy in people with diabetes. This study evaluated the OneTouch Select Plus® BGM test-strip accuracy with respect to polypharmacy using a clinical registry dataset.

METHODS

Medication profiles were analysed for 1023 subjects (425 with type 1 (T1D) and 598 with type 2 diabetes (T2D)) attending 3 UK hospitals. Blood samples were analysed to determine clinical accuracy of the BGM test-strip against a laboratory comparator.

RESULTS

538 different medications (48 diabetes and 490 non-diabetes) were recorded across the 1023 subjects. Patients took on average 6.9 (n = 1-36) individual medications and 4.1 (n = 1-13) unique medication classes. Clinical accuracy to EN ISO 15197:2015 criteria were met irrespective of increasing average number of individual medications, categorized from 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12 and >12 taken per subject (97.7%, 97.7%, 97.8%, 97.8%, and 98.4%, respectively). Clinical accuracy criteria were met across 15 classes of medication using the combined dataset (97.9%; 29784/30433). Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) analysis showed 98.7% (29959/30368) of readings presented no clinical risk. No individual class or combination of medication classes impacted clinical accuracy of the BGM test-strip.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical performance for the test strip under assessment demonstrated no evidence of interference from over 500 prescription medications, with clinical accuracy maintained across a range of polypharmacy conditions in people with diabetes.

Clinical Study of a High Accuracy Green Design Blood Glucose Monitor Using an Innovative Optical Transmission Absorbance System

BACKGROUND

Blood glucose monitoring (BGM) is essential for glycemic control in diabetic therapy. Followingly, accurate sensors are required for both daily personal and clinical use. The frequency of sensor use in patients with diabetes facilitates the use of disposable components. However, BGM systems are not exempt from green innovation sustainability initiatives.

METHODS

Clinical study of a high-accuracy green design blood glucose monitor using an innovative optical transmission absorbance system was carried out. Venous blood samples were collected from 104 patients with type II diabetes. The heat resistance of sensor strips was evaluated by storing sensor strips at 25℃ and 60℃ for approximately 3 months. Accuracy of the BGM system was evaluated via the ISO 15197:2013 protocol.

RESULTS

The BGM system achieved ±7.1% accuracy in glycemic level measurement, with 84% of all measurements within ±5% of the reference values. Furthermore, the sensor strip demonstrated heat resistance for more than 3 months when stored at 60℃.

CONCLUSIONS

A new, highly accurate BGM system was developed based on the latest optical measurement system, introducing a rare metal-free "green-strip." The developed BGM system achieved the highest reported accuracy in clinical research, using venous blood from patients with diabetes. The sensor strip also exhibited high heat resistance, reducing limitations on storage conditions.

Impact of Blood Glucose Monitoring System Accuracy on Clinical Decision Making for Diabetes Management

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) is crucial for the safe and effective management of diabetes mellitus. Despite standardization of accuracy assessment procedures and requirements, various studies have shown that the accuracy of BGMS on the market can vary considerably. This article therefore provides health care professionals and users with an intuitive illustration of the impact of BGMS accuracy on clinical decision making.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Several hypothetical patient scenarios based on blood glucose (BG) levels in the low, normal, and high BG range are devised. Using data from a recent BGMS accuracy study, a method for calculating the expected range of BG readings from four examined BGMS at the selected BG levels is introduced. Based on these ranges, it is illustrated how clinical decisions and subsequent outcomes of the hypothetical patients are affected by the expected inaccuracies of the BGMS.

RESULTS

The range of expected BGMS readings for the same true BG level can vary considerably between different BGMS. The discussion of hypothetical patient scenarios revealed that the use of some BGMS could be associated with an increased risk of adverse events such as failure to detect hypoglycemia, driving with an unsafe BG level, delay of treatment intervention in diabetes during pregnancy, or the failure to prevent diabetic ketoacidosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This article can support both health care professionals and patients to understand the impact of BGMS accuracy in a relatable, clinical context. Furthermore, it is suggested that current accuracy requirements might be insufficient for the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes in certain circumstances.

How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

The development of basal insulin analogues has reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes. Insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) represent an evolution of basal insulin analogues, both of them reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia as compared with that associated with glargine U100. However, whether degludec and glargine U300 are equivalent with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia remains to be fully ascertained. In the CONCLUDE trial, 1609 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomised to either degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) or glargine U300. In this issue of Diabetologia (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05080-9) the investigators report that during the maintenance period, HbA_1c improved to a similar extent in the two groups with no significant difference in the rate of overall hypoglycaemia (the primary endpoint of the study), while rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia (secondary endpoints) were lower with degludec U200 than with glargine U300. These results, although of great interest to the clinician, need to be carefully interpreted as they cannot be considered as conclusive. First, the primary endpoint was not met and, therefore, analyses of secondary endpoints remain exploratory. Even assuming that degludec is superior to glargine in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, the mechanism(s) accounting for such an advantage remain elusive and potential differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics difficult to appreciate because of methodological issues. The study design had to be amended because of lack of reliability of the glucometers initially used in the trial, particularly in the low blood glucose ranges, so the potential implications of these changes in the subsequent conduct of the trial cannot be excluded. Finally, comparison with the BRIGHT trial, the only other available head-to-head study, is complicated by differences between the two studies in the primary endpoint (HbA_1c reduction vs reduction of the risk of hypoglycaemia), study population (insulin-experienced vs insulin-naive) and concomitant glucose-lowering medications. In spite of all this, CONCLUDE teaches us an important lesson regarding the need, particularly in the clinical setting, to monitor the reliability of the glucometers the diabetic individual uses to adjust his/her insulin dose. Insufficient precision or inappropriate use of the glucometer can easily offset any minute advantage a new insulin can offer with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia.