Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep;11(5):970-974.
doi: 10.1177/1932296817713025. Epub 2017 Jun 12.

Bolus Insulin Dose Error Distributions Based on Results From Two Clinical Trials Comparing Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems

Scott Pardo  1 , Nancy Dunne  1 , David A Simmons  1
Affiliations

Bolus Insulin Dose Error Distributions Based on Results From Two Clinical Trials Comparing Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems

Scott Pardo et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Background: In 2 previous clinical trials, fingertip capillary blood samples were evaluated using prespecified blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) and a reference YSI glucose analyzer. In post hoc analyses, hypothetical insulin doses were calculated using these blood glucose measurements; dosing errors were compared for each trial.

Method: For each blood glucose measurement, premeal bolus insulin dosing was determined for a hypothetical person, assuming a 60-g carbohydrate meal and 100-mg/dL target blood glucose level (adjusting 1/25 insulin sensitivity and 1/15 insulin:carbohydrate ratio inputs to account for BGMS measurement error). Dosing error was the difference between doses calculated using the BGMS and YSI results.

Results: In Clinical Trial 1, 95% dose error ranges (in units of insulin) were: CONTOUR®NEXT EZ BGMS (EZ), -0.9 to 0.5; Accu-Chek® Aviva BGMS (ACA), -0.5 to 1.8; FreeStyle Freedom Lite® BGMS (FFL), -3.2 to -0.3; OneTouch® Ultra®2 BGMS (OTU2), -4.1 to 0.3; and Truetrack® BGMS (TT), -3.9 to 2.2. In Clinical Trial 2, these ranges were: CONTOUR®NEXT BGMS (CN), -0.7 to 1.7; Accu-Chek® Aviva Nano BGMS (ACAN), -1.3 to 1.8; FreeStyle Lite® BGMS (FSL), -5.1 to 0.2; OTU2, -1.9 to 1.2; OneTouch® Verio® Pro BGMS (OTVP), -1.0 to 1.9; and TT, -5.1 to 1.7. Within each trial, EZ and CN had statistically significantly smaller insulin dose error ranges than other BGMSs ( P <0.0001).

Conclusions: The ranges of insulin dose errors were statistically significantly smaller with EZ and CN than with all other BGMSs in this post hoc analysis. Differences in BGMS accuracy could result in clinically important differences in insulin dosing.

Keywords: blood glucose monitoring; diabetes management; dosing errors; insulin; self-monitoring of blood glucose.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: SP and ND are full-time employees of Ascensia Diabetes Care. DAS was an employee of Ascensia Diabetes Care at the time of the study.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Middle (median) 95% distribution of bolus insulin dose errors (Clinical Trial 1).a,b BGMS, blood glucose monitoring system; YSI, YSI glucose analyzer. aThe insulin sensitivity input (1/25) and the insulin:carbohydrate ratio (1/15) were adjusted based on the observed error of the BGMS result versus the YSI measurement. bSolid white circles represent the median dose error; horizontal bars represent the 95% dose error range. cP <0.0001 versus EZ (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Middle (median) 95% distribution of bolus insulin dose errors (Clinical Trial 2).a,b BGMS, blood glucose monitoring system; YSI, YSI glucose analyzer. aThe insulin sensitivity input (1/25) and the insulin:carbohydrate ratio (1/15) were adjusted based on the observed error of the BGMS result versus the YSI measurement. bSolid white circles represent the median dose error; horizontal bars represent the 95% dose error range. cP <0.0001 versus CN (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Pettus J, Stenger P, Schachner HC, et al. Testing versus guessing blood glucose values: impact on self-care behaviors in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(9):1795-1802. - PubMed
    1. Kirk JK, Stegner J. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: practical aspects. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(2):435-439. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boyd JC, Bruns DE. Quality specifications for glucose meters: assessment by simulation modeling of errors in insulin dose. Clin Chem. 2001;47(2):209-214. - PubMed
    1. Raine CH, III, Schrock LE, Edelman SV, et al. Significant insulin dose errors may occur if blood glucose results are obtained from miscoded meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007;1(2):205-210. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Virdi NS, Mahoney JJ. Importance of blood glucose meter and carbohydrate estimation accuracy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(4):921-926. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms