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

Drug Interference in Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose and the Impact on Patient Safety: We Can Only Guard Against What We Are Looking for

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is a key aspect of diabetes management. Depending on the technology used, however, various substances can jeopardize the reliability of the measurements and precipitate complications with potentially life-threatening consequences when blood glucose was deemed well-controlled. As such, it is important for all involved to be aware of those factors. Officially suggested procedures for testing and alternatives have each their own advantages and limitations, and interferences may be found beyond the substances to be tested provided by the various pertinent institutions. This article reviews these pros and cons and illustrates how interference testing beyond established standards contributes to patient safety. Once identified, interfering substances are included in product labeling and healthcare professionals and users need to be trained to be aware of these risks.

Investigation of the Effect of 70 Potential Interferents on Measurement Results of Two Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems

BACKGROUND

Reliable blood glucose (BG) measurements are important for people with diabetes to manage their therapy as well as in point-of-care testing (POCT) performed by health care professionals to monitor BG of patients or even to diagnose diabetes. Among other factors, endogenous and exogenous substances present in blood samples can impact the measurement results. To ensure and prove that blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) are robust in terms of potential interferents, manufacturers have to perform extensive evaluations.

METHOD

An interference screening test was performed for three reagent system lots of a POCT system and of a BGMS for self-monitoring of BG. A paired-difference approach based on ISO 15197:2013 and CLSI guideline EP07 was used with venous whole blood samples at two different glucose concentrations. Seventy potential interferents expected to be common in people with diabetes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The interference effects were determined as normalized biases between test samples and corresponding control samples. For 69 of the 70 investigated potential interferents, both systems met the predefined acceptance criteria, with the normalized biases falling within ±10 mg/dL or ±10% at glucose concentrations ≤100 mg/dL or >100 mg/dL, respectively, for each of the three evaluated reagent system lots.

CONCLUSIONS

The BGMS investigated in this study were found to be robust with respect to the 70 evaluated potential interferents. Interference effects were observed only for N-Acetyl-L-cysteine. Extensive evaluations of potential interfering factors can make an important contribution to ensure reliability of BGMS.

Traditional Interference Experiments vs. Method Comparison Interference Experiments

Two papers have appeared evaluating interferences in glucose meters. These studies are method comparisons with the added information of the medication(s) taken by the subjects. This paper contrasts a traditional interference study with the method comparison protocols. Unlike the advice in CLSI EP7, a substance that interferes should be reported even if the level of interference is clinically acceptable. The evidence of no clinically important interference in the method comparison protocol is very weak, and there is no possibility to detect statistically significant interferences. I provide an example where vitamin C at a therapeutic level was within clinical error limits, but when the concentration was at levels used to treat cancer, there was bias well above clinically acceptable limits.