Comparative Accuracy of 3 Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems that Communicate with an Insulin Pump.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the accuracy of the Contour® Next Link blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) with 2 other BGMSs (OneTouch® UltraLink® and Nova Max Link™), all 3 of which can communicate wirelessly with an insulin pump. METHODS: Study staff tested fingerstick samples from 112 subjects aged ≥18 years with each BGMS. All BGMS results were compared to YSI 2300 STAT Plus™ Glucose Analyzer results from the same sample source. To safely obtain a wide range of glucose values, 3 blood samples were obtained from each subject (1 sample was tested fresh from the fingertip [unmodified], and the other 2 samples were modified to raise or lower the glucose concentration). The primary endpoint evaluated was difference in accuracy among the BGMSs across the entire tested glucose range (34 to 561 mg/dL). Additional comparisons were made of accuracy in the low (≤80 mg/dL) and high (>180 mg/dL) glucose ranges. BGMS accuracy was assessed by mean absolute relative difference (MARD). RESULTS: The Contour® Next Link BGMS had a statistically significantly lower MARD from the reference value than the other BGMSs across the entire tested glucose range, calculated using all samples as well as only unmodified (i.e., natural) samples. In the low and high glucose ranges, the Contour® Next Link also had a statistically significantly lower MARD from the reference value than the other BGMSs. CONCLUSION: As assessed by MARD, the Contour® Next Link BGMS was significantly more accurate than the other BGMSs evaluated, all of which can communicate wirelessly with an insulin pump.

Injection Technique Education in Patients with Diabetes Injecting Insulin into Areas of Lipohypertrophy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the impact of providing intensive injection technique (IT) education to patients routinely injecting insulin into sites of lipohypertrophy (LH). METHODS: Between November 2016 and May 2018, insulin-injecting patients with LH treated at Tianjin Metabolism Hospital (a public tertiary medical institution), Tianjin, China, were included in a 6-month prospective randomized controlled trial and randomized into either the intervention (the IT-education group) or the control (control group) arm. The control and IT-education groups were seen by different groups of trained nurses on different clinic days. IT education emphasized moving injections to normal tissue sites, within-and between-site injection rotation, an initial reduction of insulin total daily dose (TDD), and stopping needle reuse. Needles were provided to the IT group, while controls acquired needles in their usual way. Differences in changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and insulin TDD were the primary and main secondary endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: The control (n = 104) and IT-education (N = 106) groups had similar demographic parameters (97% with type 2 diabetes) and baseline IT behavior. HbA1c reduction was similar in the IT-education and control group in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (6-month between-group difference 0.16% [1.7 mmol/mol], 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.11, 0.43 [- 1.2, 4.7]; p = 0.239) but was significant by the per-protocol (PP) analysis (difference 0.31% [3.4 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.02, 0.60 [0.2, 6.6]; p = 0.038). Changes in TDD insulin in the IT-education group were approximately - 7 and - 8 IU by the ITT and PP analyses, respectively, versus - 1 IU (nonsignificant) in the controls (both between-group differences p ≤ 0.05). Despite the study design, IT education "contamination" (unplanned adoption of IT-intervention behaviors) was documented in 63 control patients. By post hoc analyses, HbA1c in "contaminated" controls decreased by 0.70% (7.7 mmol/mol) vs. 0.20% (2.2 mmol/mol) in "non-contaminated' patients (p = 0.019) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Proper IT, including learning to not inject into sites of LH, proper within- and between site rotation, needle reuse reduction, and the use of 4-mm, 32-G needles in Chinese patients injecting into sites of LH enables a safe reduction of TDD insulin while maintaining overall glycemic control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ChiCTR-IOR-16009270 in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry.

Insulin Injection Practices in a Population of Canadians with Diabetes: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Proper insulin injection technique has demonstrated positive clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. A Canadian-based practice reflective was undertaken to evaluate the current state of understanding of injection technique practices by patients administering insulin, and the importance physicians place on proper injection technique. METHODS: Twenty-four sites across Canada completed a practice profile survey and enrolled adult non-pregnant patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes injecting insulin using an insulin pen. Seven areas of proper injection technique to be evaluated were identified by the study steering committee: size of injection site, use of a skin lift, needle reuse, length of the needle, duration of the needle in the skin, injection into lipohypertrophic tissue, and applied injection force. During a scheduled visit, each patient filled out the Injection Technique Survey and the physician documented the answers via an electronic database. RESULTS: Almost all physicians surveyed agreed (96%) that proper insulin injection technique is important or very important and 80% indicated they were either completely confident or fairly confident in discussing overall insulin injection technique. All patients surveyed were making at least one insulin injection technique error within the following categories: applied injection force (76%), area size of injection site (64%), duration of pen needle in skin (61%), pen needle reuse (39%), performs a skin lift with a 4 or 5 mm needle (38%), uses a longer pen needle than required (34%), and injection of insulin into lipohypertrophic tissue (37%). CONCLUSION: Patients commonly make insulin injection errors. Patient and physician education on optimal insulin injection technique continues to be an unmet medical need for the treatment of patients with diabetes. Prospective trials examining the impact of new technology, diabetes educational teams, and e-learning as educational interventions are potential avenues to explore in future studies to support improved insulin injection technique.

Correction to: Evaluating the User Performance and Experience with a Re-Engineered 4mm × 32G Pen Needle: A Randomized Trial with Similar Length/Gauge Needles.

In the original publication, Figure 7 legend was incorrectly published as "A breakdown of preference for the comparator PN (black), no preference (grey), and preference for the investigational PN (white), in all groups combined, in all VAS questions". The correct legend is given below.

Evaluating the User Performance and Experience with a Re-Engineered 4 mm × 32G Pen Needle: A Randomized Trial with Similar Length/Gauge Needles.

INTRODUCTION: Since insulin pens were first introduced in 1985, many advances have been made in pen needles (PNs). In this study we evaluated patient-reported outcomes of an investigational newly re-engineered 4 mm × 32G PN, the BD Nano™ 2nd Gen (also known by its "PRO" brand extension in many markets outside of the USA). In place of a conventional cylindrical posted hub, the investigational PN's hub is contoured with an expanded surface area. The investigational PN also includes a redesigned inner shield that includes tactile ridges and a remodeled outer cover with improved proportions and attachment grips. METHODS: This was a multi-site, prospective, open-label, two-period crossover trial. Individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using 32G PNs of ≤ 6 mm in length for ≥ 4 months were eligible. Subjects using     31G PNs of a similar length were eligible after a 2-week wash-in period. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups, with each group using a commercially available PN to which the investigational PN was compared. Each of the two study periods were 15 days: one with the investigational PN and the other with a comparator PN. After completing both study periods, subjects compared experiences between the two PN types. A 150-mm comparative visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate overall preference (primary endpoint) and several secondary endpoints, including overall comfort, injection pain, and ease of use. Data from the four PN groups were combined after poolability was verified. Subgroup analyses were also conducted on each PN group. For VAS responses, a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for average rating. Threshold for non-inferiority or superiority was established at the lower bound CI of > - 10 mm or > 0 mm, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, average age of subjects was 55.6 years; 51.6% were female; and 85.1% has type 2 diabetes mellitus. Average diabetes duration was 14.2 years, and average duration of injecting was 7.8 years. The investigational PN demonstrated superiority for all outcomes, both primary and secondary, for all groups combined (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The investigational PN was rated as being overall preferred, more comfortable, less painful, and easier to use when compared to comparator PNs of similar gauge and length, in all groups combined. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03267264). FUNDING: BD (Becton, Dickinson, and Company).

Accuracy and user performance evaluation of the Contour(®) Next Link 2.4 blood glucose monitoring system.

BACKGROUND: The Contour(®) Next Link 2.4 blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS), which communicates wirelessly exclusively with a Medtronic insulin pump, was assessed in 2 separate studies. METHODS: In the laboratory study (N=100), subject capillary fingertip samples were tested in duplicate using 3 test strip lots; accuracy was assessed based on ISO 15197:2013 section 6.3 accuracy criteria (95% within ±15mg/dl or ±15% of reference for glucose <100 and ≥100mg/dl, respectively). In the clinical trial (N=219), untrained subjects with diabetes tested capillary fingertip and palm blood samples and completed an ease-of-use questionnaire. BGMS and YSI glucose analyzer results were compared based on ISO 15197:2013 section 8 accuracy criteria. RESULTS: In the laboratory study, 100% of results met ISO 15197:2013 section 6.3 accuracy criteria. In the clinical trial, 98.6% of capillary fingertip and 97.2% of palm results from subjects met ISO 15197:2013 section 8 accuracy criteria. By Parkes-Consensus Error Grid analysis, 100% of subject capillary fingertip results were within Zone A. Based on questionnaire results, the majority of subjects found the BGMS easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: The BGMS exceeds ISO 15197:2013 section 6.3 and section 8 accuracy criteria in the laboratory and in the hands of untrained users with diabetes.

A new test strip technology platform for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

In the management of diabetes, accuracy of devices used for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is critical because SMBG results can affect patient diabetes-related health outcomes. A new blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) platform has been developed that is based on the new CONTOUR® NEXT (CN) test strip. This BGMS platform uses a proprietary electron mediator and algorithm to minimize errors at different steps in the testing process, thus minimizing outliers and significantly improving accuracy from prior-generation blood glucose meter systems. As demonstrated by questionnaire results from clinical studies with the new BGMS platform, accuracy and ease of use are important considerations for people with diabetes and their health care professionals when selecting an SMBG device. This article provides an overview of laboratory studies and clinical trials in the hands of lay users involving the performance of the portfolio of blood glucose meters that uses the new test strip. Each BGMS in the platform, which includes the CONTOUR XT (CONTOUR NEXT EZ in the United States), CONTOUR NEXT LINK, CONTOUR NEXT USB, and CN systems, demonstrated advanced accuracy both in the laboratory and in the hands of subjects (people with diabetes) and trained health care professionals. All systems met and exceeded International Organization for Standardization accuracy criteria (both ISO 15197:2003 and ISO 15197:2013). Each system in the new BGMS platform delivers advanced accuracy, which is essential to people who utilize SMBG for improved management.