Performance of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System in a Point-of-Care Setting.

This study assesses and demonstrates that CONTOUR® XT-BGMS (CXT-BGMS) complies with the requirements of the German (RiliBÄK) and Swiss (QUALAB) quality control guidelines for point-of-care testing (POCT) and fulfills the ISO15197:2013 accuracy limits criteria under the routine conditions of a hospital point-of care setting. This single-center study was conducted in Switzerland using 105 venous blood samples from hospitalized patients. Each sample was tested in comparison to the hexokinase reference method. Compliance with POCT guidelines was assessed by daily BGMS measurements using control solutions. Accuracy of CXT-BGMS according to ISO limits was 98.41%. All control measurements were within the limits defined by RiliBÄK (within ± 11% of target values and root mean square error [RMSE] within RMSE limits), and QUALAB (within ± 10% of target values).

Performance Evaluation of Three Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Using ISO 15197: 2013 Accuracy Criteria, Consensus and Surveillance Error Grid Analyses, and Insulin Dosing Error Modeling in a Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Blood glucose monitoring is an essential component of diabetes management. Inaccurate blood glucose measurements can severely impact patients' health. This study evaluated the performance of 3 blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMS), Contour® Next USB, FreeStyle InsuLinx®, and OneTouch® Verio™ IQ, under routine hospital conditions. METHODS: Venous blood samples (N = 236) obtained for routine laboratory procedures were collected at a Spanish hospital, and blood glucose (BG) concentrations were measured with each BGMS and with the available reference (hexokinase) method. Accuracy of the 3 BGMS was compared according to ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria, by mean absolute relative difference (MARD), consensus error grid (CEG) and surveillance error grid (SEG) analyses, and an insulin dosing error model. RESULTS: All BGMS met the accuracy limit criteria defined by ISO 15197:2013. While all measurements of the 3 BGMS were within low-risk zones in both error grid analyses, the Contour Next USB showed significantly smaller MARDs between reference values compared to the other 2 BGMS. Insulin dosing errors were lowest for the Contour Next USB than compared to the other systems. CONCLUSIONS: All BGMS fulfilled ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria and CEG criterion. However, taking together all analyses, differences in performance of potential clinical relevance may be observed. Results showed that Contour Next USB had lowest MARD values across the tested glucose range, as compared with the 2 other BGMS. CEG and SEG analyses as well as calculation of the hypothetical bolus insulin dosing error suggest a high accuracy of the Contour Next USB.

A Multicenter Performance Evaluation of a Blood Glucose Monitoring System in 21 Leading Hospitals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose is crucial for the effective self-management of diabetes. The present study evaluated the accuracy of the Contour® XT blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) compared to the reference method in a large multicenter study under routine lab conditions at each hospital site. METHODS: This study was conducted at 21 leading hospitals in Spain using leftover whole blood samples (n = 2100). Samples were tested with the BGMS using 1 commercial strip lot and the local laboratory hexokinase method. BGMS accuracy was assessed and results were compared to ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria and by using mean absolute relative difference analysis (MARD), consensus (Parkes) error grid (CEG), and surveillance error grid analyses (SEG). RESULTS: Pooled analysis of 2100 measurements from all sites showed that 99.43% of the BGMS results were within the ranges accepted by the accuracy limit criteria. The overall MARD was 3.85%. MARD was 4.47% for glucose concentrations < 70 mg/dL and 3.81% for concentrations of 70-300 mg/dL. In CEG, most results (99.8%) were within zone A ("no effect on clinical action"); the remaining ones (0.2%) were in zone B ("little to no effect on clinical action"). The SEG analysis showed that most of the results (98.4%) were in the "no risk" zone, with the remaining results in the "slight, lower" risk zone. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study of Contour XT BGMS to date, and shows that this BGMS meets the ISO 15197:2013 accuracy limit criteria under local routine conditions in 21 leading Spanish hospitals.