10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      User Performance Evaluation of Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Applying ISO 15197:2013 Accuracy Criteria and Calculation of Insulin Dosing Errors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0392-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose.

          The objectives of this study were 1) to construct new error grids (EGs) for blood glucose (BG) self-monitoring by using the expertise of a large panel of clinicians and 2) to use the new EGs to evaluate the accuracy of BG measurements made by patients. To construct new EGs for type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, a total of 100 experts of diabetes were asked to assign any error in BG measurement to 1 of 5 risk categories. We used these EGs to evaluate the accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in 152 diabetic patients. The SMBG data were used to compare the new type 1 diabetes EG with a traditional EG. Both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes EGs divide the risk plane into 8 concentric zones with no discontinuities. The new EGs are similar to each other, but they differ from the traditional EG in several significant ways. When used to evaluate a data set of measurements made by a sample of patients experienced in SMBG, the new type 1 diabetes EG rated 98.6% of their measurements as clinically acceptable, compared with 95% for the traditional EG. The consensus EGs furnish a new tool for evaluating errors in the measurement of BG for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The surveillance error grid.

            Currently used error grids for assessing clinical accuracy of blood glucose monitors are based on out-of-date medical practices. Error grids have not been widely embraced by regulatory agencies for clearance of monitors, but this type of tool could be useful for surveillance of the performance of cleared products. Diabetes Technology Society together with representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and representatives of academia, industry, and government, have developed a new error grid, called the surveillance error grid (SEG) as a tool to assess the degree of clinical risk from inaccurate blood glucose (BG) monitors. A total of 206 diabetes clinicians were surveyed about the clinical risk of errors of measured BG levels by a monitor. The impact of such errors on 4 patient scenarios was surveyed. Each monitor/reference data pair was scored and color-coded on a graph per its average risk rating. Using modeled data representative of the accuracy of contemporary meters, the relationships between clinical risk and monitor error were calculated for the Clarke error grid (CEG), Parkes error grid (PEG), and SEG. SEG action boundaries were consistent across scenarios, regardless of whether the patient was type 1 or type 2 or using insulin or not. No significant differences were noted between responses of adult/pediatric or 4 types of clinicians. Although small specific differences in risk boundaries between US and non-US clinicians were noted, the panel felt they did not justify separate grids for these 2 types of clinicians. The data points of the SEG were classified in 15 zones according to their assigned level of risk, which allowed for comparisons with the classic CEG and PEG. Modeled glucose monitor data with realistic self-monitoring of blood glucose errors derived from meter testing experiments plotted on the SEG when compared to the data plotted on the CEG and PEG produced risk estimates that were more granular and reflective of a continuously increasing risk scale. The SEG is a modern metric for clinical risk assessments of BG monitor errors that assigns a unique risk score to each monitor data point when compared to a reference value. The SEG allows the clinical accuracy of a BG monitor to be portrayed in many ways, including as the percentages of data points falling into custom-defined risk zones. For modeled data the SEG, compared with the CEG and PEG, allows greater precision for quantifying risk, especially when the risks are low. This tool will be useful to allow regulators and manufacturers to monitor and evaluate glucose monitor performance in their surveillance programs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of blood glucose self-monitoring errors on glucose variability, risk for hypoglycemia, and average glucose control in type 1 diabetes: an in silico study.

              Clinical trials assessing the impact of errors in self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on the quality of glycemic control in diabetes are inherently difficult to execute. Consequently, the objectives of this study were to employ realistic computer simulation based on a validated model of the human metabolic system and to provide potentially valuable information about the relationships among SMBG errors, risk for hypoglycemia, glucose variability, and long-term glycemic control. Sixteen thousand computer simulation trials were conducted using 100 simulated adults with type 1 diabetes. Each simulated subject was used in four simulation experiments aiming to assess the impact of SMBG errors on detection of hypoglycemia (experiment 1), risk for hypoglycemia (experiment 2), glucose variability (experiment 3), and long-term average glucose control, i.e., estimated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)(experiment 4). Each experiment was repeated 10 times at each of four increasing levels of SMBG errors: 5, 10, 15, and 20% deviation from the true blood glucose value. When the permitted SMBG error increased from 0 to 5-10% to 15-20%-the current level allowed by International Organization for Standardization 15197-(1) the probability for missing blood glucose readings of 60 mg/dl increased from 0 to 0-1% to 3.5-10%; (2) the incidence of hypoglycemia, defined as reference blood glucose
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                christina.liebing@idt-ulm.de
                Journal
                Diabetes Ther
                Diabetes Ther
                Diabetes Therapy
                Springer Healthcare (Cheshire )
                1869-6953
                1869-6961
                3 March 2018
                3 March 2018
                April 2018
                : 9
                : 2
                : 683-697
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9748, GRID grid.6582.9, Institut für Diabetes-Technologie, , Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, ; Ulm, Germany
                Article
                392
                10.1007/s13300-018-0392-6
                6104257
                29502304
                15538009-5acd-4acf-b6ae-d55c80dbec2c
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 24 January 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Ascensia Diabetes Care Deutschland GmbH
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                insulin dosing errors,iso 15197,lay-user,self-monitoring of blood glucose,surveillance error grid,system accuracy,user performance evaluation

                Comments

                Comment on this article