Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) of blood glucose (BG) is performed by medical personnel in clinical settings as well as by patients themselves for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) at home. We investigated if a system mainly intended for SMBG by people with diabetes, but also suitable for BG measurements by medical personnel, can achieve measurement accuracy on capillary blood samples comparable with professional-use POCT systems.
Methods: System accuracy was evaluated under standardised conditions, following the ISO standard 15197:2003. For each system (one SMBG system with three test strip lots and six professional-use systems), measurement results from capillary blood samples of 100 subjects were compared with a standardised laboratory glucose oxidase method (YSI 2300 glucose analyser).
Results: The seven evaluated systems showed 99.5% or 100% of the measurement results within the required system accuracy limits of ISO 15197:2003 (±0.83 mmol/L at BG concentrations <4.2 mmol/L and ±20% at BG concentrations ≥4.2 mmol/L). Applying the more stringent requirements of the revision ISO 15197:2013, the systems showed between 99% and 100% of the measurement results within the accuracy limits (±0.83 mmol/L at BG concentrations <5.55 mmol/L and ±15% at BG concentrations ≥5.55 mmol/L) and between 82% and 98% when even more restrictive limits were applied (±0.56 mmol/L and ±10%, respectively).
Conclusions: Data from this study, which focused on system accuracy, suggest that SMBG systems can achieve system accuracy that is comparable with professional-use systems when measurements are performed on capillary blood samples by trained personnel in a standardised and controlled setting.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. Research funding played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
Research funding: This study was funded by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Antony, France.
Employment or leadership: GF is general manager of the IDT (Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany), which carries out studies evaluating BG meters and medical devices for diabetes therapy on behalf of various companies. CS, SP, AB, ML, ES, CH are employees of the IDT. JS is employee of Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Germany.
Honorarium: GF/IDT received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees from Abbott, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Becton-Dickinson, Dexcom, Menarini Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Ypsomed. This study was funded by a grant from Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Antony, France.
2. Junker R, Luppa PB, Schlebusch H. Patientennahe Labordiagnostik in Klinik und Praxis. Dt Ärzteblatt 2010;107:561–7.Search in Google Scholar
4. In vitro diagnostic test systems – Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. DIN EN ISO 15197:2003.Search in Google Scholar
5. In vitro diagnostic test systems – Requirements for blood-glucose monitoring systems for self-testing in managing diabetes mellitus. ISO 15197:2013.Search in Google Scholar
6. Farrance I. Policies, procedures and guidelines for point-of-care testing. RCPA Quality Assurance Programs Pty Ltd. Available from: http://www.aacb.asn.au/documents/item/635. Accessed September 25, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
7. Bundesärztekammer. Richtlinie der Bundesärztekammer zur Qualitätssicherung laboratoriumsmedizinischer Untersuchungen. Dt Ärzteblatt 2008;105:341–55.Search in Google Scholar
8. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.Search in Google Scholar
9. Passing H, Bablok W. 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. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709–20.Search in Google Scholar
10. Pfutzner A, Schipper C, Ramljak S, Flacke F, Sieber J, Forst T, et al. Determination of hematocrit interference in blood samples derived from patients with different blood glucose concentrations. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:170–8.10.1177/193229681300700122Search in Google Scholar
11. Ramljak S, Musholt PB, Schipper C, Flacke F, Sieber J, Borchert M, et al. The Precision study: examining the inter- and intra-assay variability of replicate measurements of BGStar, iBGStar and 12 other blood glucose monitors. Expert Opin Med Diagn 2013;7:511–6.10.1517/17530059.2013.839984Search in Google Scholar
14. Stork AD, Kemperman H, Erkelens DW, Veneman TF. Comparison of the accuracy of the HemoCue glucose analyzer with the Yellow Springs Instrument glucose oxidase analyzer, particularly in hypoglycemia. Eur J Endocrinol 2005;153:275–81.10.1530/eje.1.01952Search in Google Scholar
15. Nowotny B, Nowotny PJ, Strassburger K, Roden M. Precision and accuracy of blood glucose measurements using three different instruments. Diabet Med 2012;29:260–5.10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03406.xSearch in Google Scholar
16. Robinson CS, Sharp P. Tighter accuracy standards within point-of-care blood glucose monitoring: how six commonly used systems compare. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:547–54.10.1177/193229681200600309Search in Google Scholar
17. Dungan K, Chapman J, Braithwaite SS, Buse J. Glucose measurement: confounding issues in setting targets for inpatient management. Diabetes Care 2007;30:403–9.10.2337/dc06-1679Search in Google Scholar
18. Heinemann L. Quality of glucose measurement with blood glucose meters at the point-of-care: relevance of interfering factors. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12:847–57.10.1089/dia.2010.0076Search in Google Scholar
19. Nerhus K, Rustad P, Sandberg S. Effect of ambient temperature on analytical performance of self-monitoring blood glucose systems. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:883–92.10.1089/dia.2010.0255Search in Google Scholar
20. Oberg D, Ostenson CG. Performance of glucose dehydrogenase- and glucose oxidase-based blood glucose meters at high altitude and low temperature. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1261.10.2337/diacare.28.5.1261Search in Google Scholar
21. Pecchio O, Maule S, Migliardi M, Trento M, Veglio M. Effects of exposure at an altitude of 3,000 m on performance of glucose meters. Diabetes Care 2000;23:129–31.10.2337/diacare.23.1.129aSearch in Google Scholar
23. Warner JV, Wu JY, Buckingham N, McLeod DS, Mottram B, Carter AC. Can one point-of-care glucose meter be used for all pediatric and adult hospital patients? Evaluation of three meters, including recently modified test strips. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:55–62.10.1089/dia.2010.0129Search in Google Scholar
24. Lyon ME, Baskin LB, Braakman S, Presti S, Dubois J, Shirey T. Interference studies with two hospital-grade and two home-grade glucose meters. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009;11:641–7.10.1089/dia.2009.0035Search in Google Scholar
25. Critchell CD, Savarese V, Callahan A, Aboud C, Jabbour S, Marik P. Accuracy of bedside capillary blood glucose measurements in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2007;33:2079–84.10.1007/s00134-007-0835-4Search in Google Scholar
26. Louie RF, Tang Z, Sutton DV, Lee JH, Kost GJ. Point-of-care glucose testing: effects of critical care variables, influence of reference instruments, and a modular glucose meter design. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:257–66.10.5858/2000-124-0257-POCGTSearch in Google Scholar
27. Blood glucose monitoring test systems for prescription point-of-care use – draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. Food and Drug Administration. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/UCM380325.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
29. Tanvetyanon T, Walkenstein MD, Marra A. Inaccurate glucose determination by fingerstick in a patient with peripheral arterial disease. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:W1.10.7326/0003-4819-137-9-200211050-00031-w1Search in Google Scholar
30. Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, Bruns DE, Horvath AR, Kirkman MS, et al. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Clin Chem 2011;57:e1–47.10.1373/clinchem.2010.161596Search in Google Scholar
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston