Dataset Information

System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Accuracy of 18 current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) available in Europe was evaluated applying criteria adapted from EN ISO 15197:2015 with one reagent system lot. BGMS were selected based on market research data. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:The BGMS ABRA, Accu-Chek Guide, AURUM, CareSens Dual, CERA-CHEK 1CODE, ContourNext One, eBsensor, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, GL50 evo, GlucoCheck GOLD, GlucoMen areo 2K, GluNEO, MyStar DoseCoach, OneTouch Verio Flex, Pic GlucoTest, Rightest GM700S, TRUEyou, and WaveSense JAZZ Wireless were tested using capillary blood from 100 different subjects and assessing the percentage of results within ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) or 15% of comparison method results for BG concentrations below or above 100 mg/dL (5.55 mmol/L), respectively. In addition, the minimal deviation from comparison method results within which ?95% of results of the respective BGMS were found was calculated. RESULTS:In total, 14 BGMS had ?95% of results within ±15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) or ±15% and 3 BGMS had ?95% of results within ±10 mg/dL (0.55 mmol/L) or ±10% of the results obtained with the comparison method. The smallest deviation from comparison method results within which ?95% of results were found was ±7.7 mg/dL (0.43 mmol/L) or ±7.7%; the highest deviation was ±19.7 mg/dL (1.09 mmol/L) or ±19.7%. CONCLUSIONS:This accuracy evaluation shows that not all CE-labeled BGMS fulfill accuracy requirements of ISO 15197 reliably and that there is considerable variation even among BGMS fulfilling these criteria. This safety-related information should be taken into account by patients and healthcare professionals when making therapy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03737188.

SUBMITTER: Pleus S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7039612 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015.

Pleus Stefan S Baumstark Annette A Jendrike Nina N Mende Jochen J Link Manuela M Zschornack Eva E Haug Cornelia C Freckmann Guido G

BMJ open diabetes research & care 20200101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Accuracy of 18 current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) available in Europe was evaluated applying criteria adapted from EN ISO 15197:2015 with one reagent system lot. BGMS were selected based on market research data.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>The BGMS ABRA, Accu-Chek Guide, AURUM, CareSens Dual, CERA-CHEK 1CODE, ContourNext One, eBsensor, FreeStyle Freedom Lite, GL50 evo, GlucoCheck GOLD, GlucoMen areo 2K, GluNEO, MyStar DoseCoach, OneTouch Verio Fle ...[more]

PMID: 31958308

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSufficiently high analytical quality of blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) is a prerequisite for efficient diabetes therapy. In this study we assessed system accuracy, measurement repeatability, intermediate measurement precision, user performance, and the influence of hematocrit on two CE-marked blood glucose monitoring systems. For one BGMS, measurement accuracy using venous samples was additionally investigated.MethodsStudy procedures were based on the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 15197:2013/EN ISO 15197:2015 ("ISO 15197"). User performance included data from 100 subjects who used one test strip lot, whereas for all other analyses three different reagent system lots were used. For system accuracy assessment, 100 capillary samples were measured in duplicate with each of three reagent system lots per system, resulting in 600 results per system.ResultsCareSens S Fit and CareSens H Beat both fulfilled the ISO 15197 accuracy criteria with 97.5-100% of each test strip lot's results falling within ± 15 mg/dL or ± 15% of the results of the comparison method and 100% of results in consensus error grid (CEG) zone A for all three lots. User performance evaluation revealed sufficient accuracy in the hands of lay users although some handling errors were documented by study staff. Assessment of measurement repeatability and intermediate measurement precision is given by standard deviation (SD) (glucose levels < 100 mg/dL) and by coefficient of variation (CV) (glucose concentrations ≥ 100 mg/dL). SD was ≤ 4.1 mg/dL and CV ≤ 4.2% for measurement repeatability and SD was ≤ 2.2 mg/dL and CV ≤ 2.6% for intermediate measurement precision. In case of hematocrit influence, both BGMS complied with all three tested lots with the defined criteria.ConclusionBoth BGMS analyzed in this study fulfilled the required accuracy criteria of ISO 15197. They showed high precision, good performance in the hands of lay users, and the influence of hematocrit was acceptable in the labeled range.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The international standard ISO 15197:2013 requires a user performance evaluation to assess if intended users are able to obtain accurate blood glucose measurement results with a self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) system. In this study, user performance was evaluated for four SMBG systems on the basis of ISO 15197:2013, and possibly related insulin dosing errors were calculated. Additionally, accuracy was assessed in the hands of study personnel. METHODS:Accu-Chek® Performa Connect (A), Contour® plus ONE (B), FreeStyle Optium Neo (C), and OneTouch Select® Plus (D) were evaluated with one test strip lot. After familiarization with the systems, subjects collected a capillary blood sample and performed an SMBG measurement. Study personnel observed the subjects' measurement technique. Then, study personnel performed SMBG measurements and comparison measurements. Number and percentage of SMBG measurements within ± 15 mg/dl and ± 15% of the comparison measurements at glucose concentrations < 100 and ≥ 100 mg/dl, respectively, were calculated. In addition, insulin dosing errors were modelled. RESULTS:In the hands of lay-users three systems fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria with the investigated test strip lot showing 96% (A), 100% (B), and 98% (C) of results within the defined limits. All systems fulfilled minimum accuracy criteria in the hands of study personnel [99% (A), 100% (B), 99.5% (C), 96% (D)]. Measurements with all four systems were within zones of the consensus error grid and surveillance error grid associated with no or minimal risk. Regarding calculated insulin dosing errors, all 99% ranges were between dosing errors of - 2.7 and + 1.4 units for measurements in the hands of lay-users and between - 2.5 and + 1.4 units for study personnel. Frequent lay-user errors were not checking the test strips' expiry date and applying blood incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS:Data obtained in this study show that not all available SMBG systems complied with ISO 15197:2013 accuracy criteria when measurements were performed by lay-users. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02916576). FUNDING:Ascensia Diabetes Care Deutschland GmbH.

Dataset Information

System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015.

Publications

System accuracy evaluation of 18 CE-marked current-generation blood glucose monitoring systems based on EN ISO 15197:2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets