ObjectiveAccuracy 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 methodsThe 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.ResultsIn 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%.ConclusionsThis 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 numberNCT03737188.

No abstract

Background Recently two new tubeless pumps for insulin therapy were introduced. They were tested for accuracy and occlusion detection and compared to the established patch pump Omnipod ® (OP). Methods Using a modified setup for tubeless pumps based on IEC 60601-2-24, the basal rate and bolus delivery of the Accu-Chek ® Solo micropump system (ACS) and the A6 TouchCare ® System (A6) were measured with a microgravimetric method. Bolus sizes of 0.2 U,

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is an important issue for people with diabetes who are on an insulin regimen. Blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) for self-monitoring should therefore provide accurate measurement results, so that people with diabetes can achieve adequate glycemic control. Accuracy of BGMS comprises two aspects, trueness and precision. 1 The former relates to how well an average of replicate measurement results matches a comparative result (reference result), whereas the latter relates to the agreement among replicate measurement results. Both aspects are relevant for BGMS users: Varying bias (ie, varying levels of lack of trueness) may not be recognized by diabetes patients, which could have a systematic effect on their glucose control. Large variability among individual results (ie, lack of precision), on the other hand, may pose a problem, because diabetes patients cannot know whether the BGMS happens to show a correct, falsely elevated or falsely lowered result.

Background: Measurement accuracy has been assessed for many different blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS) over the years by different study groups. However, the choice of the comparison measurement procedure may impact the apparent level of accuracy found in such studies. Materials and Methods: Measurement accuracy of 18 different BGMS was assessed in a setting based on ISO 15197 using two different comparison methods in parallel: a glucose oxidase (GOD)-based and a hexokinase (HK)-based method. Accuracy limits of ISO 15197 were applied, and additional analyses were performed, including bias, linear regression, and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) to assess the impact of possible differences between comparison methods on the apparent level of accuracy. Results: While ≈80% of BGMS met the accuracy criteria of ISO 15197 when compared with the respective manufacturers’ reference measurement procedure, only two-thirds did so against both comparison methods. The mean relative bias ranged from −6.6% to +5.7% for the analysis against the GOD-based method and from −11.1% to +1.3% for the analysis against the HK-based method, whereas MARD results ranged from 3.7% to 9.8% and from 2.3% to 10.5%, respectively. Results of regression analysis showed slopes between 0.85 and 1.08 (GOD-based method) and between 0.81 and 1.01 (HK-based method). Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that there are systematic differences between the reference measurement procedures used for BGMS calibration as well as for system accuracy assessment. Because of the potential impact on therapy of patients with diabetes resulting from these differences, further steps toward harmonization of the measurement procedures’ results are important.