Use of a Meter With Color-Range Indicators and a Mobile Diabetes Management App Improved Glycemic Control and Patient Satisfaction in an Underserved Hispanic Population: "Tu Salud"-A Randomized Controlled Partial Cross-Over Clinical Study.

Objective: To demonstrate the clinical value of OneTouch (OT) Verio Flex glucose meter used in combination with a Spanish-language version of the OT Reveal mobile application (app) to support diabetes care and improve glycemic control in an underserved Hispanic population with type 2 diabetes. Research Design and Methods: Test subjects (n = 81) used the meter and app for 12 weeks, while a randomized control group (n = 39) used their own glucose meters without connection to an app. Thereafter, test subjects continued the same regimen for an additional 12 weeks to determine the durability of effect, and control subjects crossed over to use the new meter and app. Results: Test subjects experienced a mean reduction in A1C of 1.0% after 12 weeks (P <0.001), a statistically significant greater reduction than in control subjects (P = 0.045). The improvement in A1C in test subjects was sustained over the next 12 weeks. Crossed-over subjects also demonstrated significant improvements in A1C (P <0.001). Mean blood glucose was reduced significantly without an increase in hypoglycemia, and results in range increased over 12 weeks of meter and mobile app use. Results were independent of subjects' numeracy skills. Subjects using the new meter and app reacted favorably to the tools and expressed improvements in their diabetes treatment satisfaction based on Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change scores. Conclusion: Use of the OT meter and a Spanish-language version of its diabetes management app in an underserved population helped participants achieve a sustained improvement in glycemic control. The tools were well received by the subjects and may have important utility in other low-numeracy, low-literacy populations.

Site-specific cancer risk following cobalt exposure via orthopedic implants or in occupational settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2020, the European Commission up-classified metal cobalt as Class 1B Carcinogen (presumed to have carcinogenic potential) based primarily on data from rodent inhalation carcinogenicity studies. This up-classification requires an assessment under the Medical Device Regulations of cobalt cancer risk from medical devices. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate site-specific cancer risks with cobalt exposure from either total joint replacement (TJR) or occupational exposure (OC). Results were stratified by exposure type (OC or TJR), exposure level (metal-on-metal (MoM) or non-MoM), follow-up duration (latency period: <5, 5-10 or >10 years), and cancer incidence or mortality (detection bias assessment). From 30 studies (653,104 subjects, average 14.5 years follow-up), the association between TJR/OC and cancer risk was null for 22 of 27 cancer sites, negative for 3 sites, and positive for prostate cancer and myeloma. Significant heterogeneity and large estimate ranges were observed for many cancer sites. No significant increase in estimates was observed by exposure level or follow-up duration. The current evidence, including weak associations, heterogeneity across studies and no increased association with exposure level or follow-up duration, is insufficient to conclude that there exists an increased risk for people exposed to cobalt in TJR/OC of developing site-specific cancers.

An integrated benefit-risk assessment of cobalt-containing alloys used in medical devices: Implications for regulatory requirements in the European Union.

In 2017, the European Union (EU) Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) recommended the classification of metallic cobalt (Co) as Category 1B with respect to its carcinogenic and reproductive hazard potential and Category 2 for mutagenicity but did not evaluate the relevance of these classifications for patients exposed to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) used in medical devices. CoCA are inherently different materials from Co metal from a toxicological perspective and thus require a separate assessment. CoCA are biocompatible materials with a unique combination of properties including strength, durability, and a long history of safe use that make them uniquely suited for use in a wide-range of medical devices. Assessments were performed on relevant preclinical and clinical carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity data for Co and CoCA to meet the requirements under the EU Medical Device Regulation triggered by the ECHA re-classification (adopted in October 2019 under the 14th Adaptation to Technical Progress to CLP) and to address their relevance to patient safety. The objective of this review is to present an integrated overview of these assessments, a benefit-risk assessment and an examination of potential alternative materials. The data support the conclusion that the exposure to CoCA in medical devices via clinically relevant routes does not represent a hazard for carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Additionally, the risk for the adverse effects that are known to occur with elevated Co concentrations (e.g., cardiomyopathy) are very low for CoCA implant devices (infrequent reports often reflecting a unique catastrophic failure event out of millions of patients) and negligible for CoCA non-implant devices (not measurable/no case reports). In conclusion, the favorable benefit-risk profile also in relation to possible alternatives presented herein strongly support continued use of CoCA in medical devices.

Carcinogenic assessment of cobalt-containing alloys in medical devices or cobalt in occupational settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of overall cancer risk from published epidemiologic studies.

In 2020, the European Commission up-classified pure cobalt metal to a Category 1B hazard, based primarily on data from rodent inhalation carcinogenicity studies of metallic cobalt. The European Commission review did not evaluate cobalt-containing alloys in medical devices, which have very different properties vs. pure cobalt metal and did not include a systematic epidemiologic review. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies evaluating the association between overall cancer risk and exposure to orthopedic implants containing cobalt alloys or cobalt particulates in occupational settings. Study-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Analyses included 20 papers on orthopedic implants and 10 occupational cohort papers (~1 million individuals). The meta-analysis summary estimates (95% confidence intervals) for overall cancer risk were 1.00 (0.96-1.04) overall and 0.97 (0.94-1.00) among high-quality studies. Results were also similar in analyses stratified by type of exposure/data sources (occupational cohort, implant registry or database), comparators (general or implant population), cancer incidence or mortality, follow-up duration (latency period), and study precision. In conclusion, meta-analysis found no association between exposure to orthopedic implants containing cobalt alloys or cobalt particulates in occupational settings and overall cancer risk, including an analysis of studies directly comparing metal-on-metal vs. non-metal-on-metal implants.

A hazard evaluation of the reproductive/developmental toxicity of cobalt in medical devices.

Cobalt (Co) is an essential element with human exposure occurring from the diet, supplement ingestion, occupational sources, and medical devices. The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) recently voted to classify Co metal as a Reproductive Hazard Category 1B; presumed human reproductive toxicant due to adverse testicular effects in male rodents. A weight of evidence evaluation of the preclinical reproductive and developmental toxicity studies and available clinical data was performed to critically evaluate the relevance of this proposed classification for Co in medical devices. Reproductive responses to Co are limited to the male testes and sperm function following high systemic exposure in rodents, only at Co concentrations/doses that result in overt toxicity (i.e., above the maximum tolerable dose (MTD)). The potential mechanisms of Co reproductive/developmental toxicity, including its indirect mode of action in the testes and relevance to humans, are discussed. The available preclinical and clincial evidence suggests that it would be more appropriate to classify Co as a Reproductive Hazard Category 2 compound: suspected human reproductive toxicant and, in the case of Co-containing medical devices, it should not be considered a reproductive hazard.

Carcinogenic hazard assessment of cobalt-containing alloys in medical devices: Review of in vivo studies.

Cobalt (Co) alloys have been used for over seven decades in a wide range of medical devices, including, but not limited to, hip and knee implants, surgical tools, and vascular stents, due to their favorable biocompatibility, durability, and mechanical properties. A recent regulatory hazard classification review by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) resulted in the classification of metallic Co as a Class 1B Carcinogen (presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans), primarily based on inhalation rodent carcinogenicity studies with pure metallic Co. The ECHA review did not specifically consider the carcinogenicity hazard potential of forms or routes of Co that are relevant for medical devices. The purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive assessment of the available in vivo preclinical data on the carcinogenic hazard potential of exposure to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) in medical devices by relevant routes. In vivo data were reviewed from 33 preclinical studies that examined the impact of Co exposure on local and systemic tumor incidence in rats, mice, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Across these studies, there was no significant increase of local or systemic tumors in studies relevant for medical devices. Taken together, the relevant in vivo data led to the conclusion that CoCA in medical devices are not a carcinogenic hazard in available in vivo models. While specific patient and implant factors cannot be fully replicated using in vivo models, the available in vivo preclinical data support that CoCA in medical devices are unlikely a carcinogenic hazard to patients.

Satisfaction of Healthcare Professionals and People With Diabetes With an Insulin Bolus Calculator Mobile Application.

People with diabetes (PWD) who need to take mealtime insulin to help control their blood sugar often have difficulty correctly calculating their dose due to consideration of many factors such as current blood glucose, carbohydrate consumption, active insulin duration, insulin-to-carb ratio, and insulin sensitivity. The Insulin Mentor, a bolus calculator tool in the OneTouch Reveal diabetes management app, uses an algorithm to automate many of these calculations and contains a link to a food diary to help estimate carbohydrate intake. In the current study, healthcare professionals and PWD from United States and Germany responded favorably to simulations of this calculator tool and compared it positively with other apps on the market. The Insulin Mentor may simplify the difficult process of correctly calculating mealtime insulin doses for PWD.

Patients With Diabetes Using a New Glucose Meter With Blood Sugar Mentor and Dynamic Color Range Indicator Features Show Improved Interpretation and Willingness to Act on Blood Glucose Results (ASCEND Study).

BACKGROUND: We examined whether dynamic color range indicator (DCRI) and blood sugar mentor (BSM) features in a new blood glucose meter could improve interpretation of results and encourage patient action. METHODS: One hundred and thirty three people with type 2 (T2D) (n = 73) or type 1 diabetes (T1D) (n = 60) evaluated information first without and then with DCRI or BSM guidance using interactive exercises. RESULTS: Subjects improved their ability to categorize results into low, in range, or high glycemic ranges by 29% (T2D) and 22% (T1D) (each P < .001). There was significantly greater willingness to act on high and low results shown with DCRI or BSM screens. Subjects also expressed a high degree of satisfaction with these features. CONCLUSIONS: Use of DCRI and BSM in this meter may help patients improve their diabetes management decisions.

Meeting the New FDA Standard for Accuracy of Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems Intended for Home Use by Lay Users.

The OneTouch Verio Reflect blood glucose monitor (BGM) has market clearance in several countries based in part on fulfilling the lay user and system accuracy criteria described in ISO15197:2015. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not recognize the accuracy criteria in ISO15197 as a basis for gaining regulatory clearance for these devices. The current study evaluates the BGM using the accuracy guidelines issued by the agency for self-monitoring blood glucose test systems for over-the-counter use. Glucose results were accurate vs comparator over a wide glucose range and met lay user and glucose accuracy criteria at extreme glucose values as described in the FDA guidance.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03851549.

Patient Satisfaction With a New, High Accuracy Blood Glucose Meter That Provides Personalized Guidance, Insight, and Encouragement.

BACKGROUND: Accurate self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a key component of effective self-management of glycemic control. METHODS: The OneTouch Verio Reflect and OneTouch Ultra Plus Reflect BG monitoring systems were evaluated for accuracy in a clinical setting. Subjects also used the meters for a one-week trial period and reported their level of satisfaction with meter features. RESULTS: Both systems were accurate over a wide glucose range and met lay user and system accuracy BG standards described in ISO15197:2015. Subjects felt that the features of a meter with a dynamic color range indicator and personalized guidance, insight, and encouragement could provide significant benefits to them in the management of their diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Both meter systems were accurate over a wide glucose range and the features of the meter and messages were well received by patients in a short take-home trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0351542.

Capillary and Venous Blood Glucose Accuracy in Blood Glucose Meters Versus Reference Standards: The Impact of Study Design on Accuracy Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal blood glucose assessments conducted by health care professionals (HCPs) in the field have highlighted differences in results when methodology used is not according to best practices for measuring blood glucose. This study assessed the impact on accuracy of blood glucose measurements when methodology deviates from the recommended study design and recommended reference instrument. METHODS: Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes provided capillary and venous blood samples for accuracy assessments using OneTouch® Verio® (Verio) and OneTouch® Ultra 2® (Ultra) blood glucose meters (BGM) and two different reference instruments. RESULTS: Increases in mean bias were observed when comparing capillary to venous samples tested on the BGMs and the recommended reference instrument. Mean bias was even greater when a hospital blood glucose analyzer was used to measure venous plasma glucose. Increases in mean bias observed for Ultra BGM when testing venous blood on the meter compared to the recommended reference instrument was likely due to the interfering effects of low oxygen levels in the venous blood sample. Conversely, Verio meters, which are insensitive to low oxygen levels, showed little difference from baseline when testing venous blood on the meter compared to results from the same venous sample measured on a reference instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Deviations from the best practice study design of comparing capillary blood glucose results tested on the blood glucose meter with the manufacturer's stated reference instrument will affect accuracy of blood glucose measurements.

Use of Blood Glucose Meters Featuring Color Range Indicators Improves Glycemic Control in Patients With Diabetes in Comparison to Blood Glucose Meters Without Color (ACCENTS Study).

BACKGROUND: The ability of patients to improve glycemic control depends partly on their ability to interpret and act on blood glucose results. We investigated whether switching people with diabetes to blood glucose meters (BGMs) featuring a color range indicator (CRI) could improve glycemic control compared to remaining on their current BGM without color. METHODS: 163 adults with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a hemoglobin A1c (A1c) of 7.5-11% were randomized to: One Touch Verio™ (Verio), OneTouch Verio Flex™ (Flex), or controls remaining on their current BGM. Diabetes nurses had standard conversations about diabetes management with all subjects at baseline. No changes in medication, insulin dosing, or SMBG frequency were recommended. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, subjects who switched to Verio or Flex meters with CRI (n = 108) had a mean change in A1c 0.36% lower than controls (n = 55) ( P = .017). A1c reductions were greatest in T1D subjects (n = 45), with a decrease of 0.50% ( P = .004). T1D subjects using Verio meters (n = 25) contributed a 0.59% reduction compared to controls ( P < .008), whereas T1D subjects using Flex meters (n = 20) had a clinical meaningful reduction in A1c of 0.40% without reaching statistical significance ( P > .05). Verio and Flex users reported taking more action and easier understanding of diabetes management compared to previous BGMs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that switching patients to BGMs featuring a CRI resulted in improvements in glycemic control compared to subjects using currently marketed BGMs that do not use a CRI. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02929654 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02929654.

Patient and Health-care Professional Satisfaction with a New, Simple, High Accuracy Blood Glucose Meter with Color Range Indicator.

BACKGROUND: Accurate self-monitoring of blood glucose (BG) is a key component of effective self-management of glycemic control. METHODS: The OneTouch Select Plus Simple™ (OTSPS) BG monitoring system (BGMS) was evaluated for accuracy in a clinical setting. RESULTS: OTSPS was accurate over a wide glucose range and met lay user and system accuracy BG standards described in ISO 15197:2013. Patients also used OTSPS for a 1-week trial period and reported their level of satisfaction with meter features. In a separate study, health-care professionals (HCPs) in India naïve to OTSPS experienced OTSPS online using a variety of interactive demonstrations of the BGMS and answered questions about its potential utility to their patients. SUMMARY: Patients and HCPs felt the features of OTSPS, including a color range indicator, could provide significant benefits to them and their patients.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Novel Color Range Indicator in Multiple Blood Glucose Meters Demonstrates Improved Glucose Range Interpretation and Awareness in Subjects With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

AIMS: We previously demonstrated that people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) can improve their ability to categorize blood glucose (BG) results into low, in range, or high glycemic ranges after experiencing a color range indicator (CRI or ColorSure™ Technology) in a single meter. This study examined whether a CRI was effective in people with type 1 (T1) or T2DM when used in 3 glucose meters. METHODS: A total of 179 subjects (139 T2DM and 40 T1DM) classified BG values as low, in range, or high based on individual current knowledge. Subjects then experienced the CRI which showed whether different BG values were low, in range, or high. After CRI interaction, subjects repeated the classification. RESULTS: Following interaction with the CRI, subjects significantly improved their ability to categorize BG results into low, in range, and high glycemic ranges by 27.9% (T2DM) and 27.2% (T1DM) (each P < .001). Improvement was not accompanied by an increase in time spent categorizing results. There was no difference in classification ability between subjects with T1 or T2DM. There was also no correlation between HbA1c, numeracy level, test frequency, or duration of diabetes and the ability to correctly classify results. Subjects agreed the CRI feature helped them easily interpret glucose values and improved their awareness of glucose ranges. CONCLUSION: Interaction with a CRI improved the ability of subjects with T1 and T2DM to interpret and categorize BG values into recommended glycemic ranges, irrespective of the glucose meter providing the CRI insights.

Patient and healthcare professional satisfaction with a new, high accuracy blood glucose meter with color range indicator and wireless connectivity.

Accurate self-monitoring of blood glucose is a key component of effective self-management of glycemic control. The OneTouch VerioFlex(™) (OTVF) blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) was evaluated for accuracy in a clinical setting. Patients also used OTVF for a 1-wk trial period and reported their level of satisfaction with meter features. In a separate study, healthcare professionals used an on-line simulator of the BGMS and answered questions about its potential utility to their patients. OTVF was accurate over a wide glucose range and met lay user and system accuracy blood glucose standards described in ISO15197:2013 as well as the accuracy requirements to fulfill US FDA expectations for 510(k) clearance of BGMS. Patients and healthcare professionals felt the features of OTVF, which has the capability to connect wirelessly to mobile devices and interact wirelessly with diabetes management software, could provide significant benefits to them or their patients.

Remote Health Consultations Supported by a Diabetes Management Web Application With a New Glucose Meter Demonstrates Improved Glycemic Control.

BACKGROUND: Cloud-connected diabetes applications enable health care professionals (HCPs) to monitor patient progress and offer the potential for remote consultations. OneTouch Reveal (OTR) is a cloud-based web application that aggregates data from blood glucose (BG) meters or insulin pumps and provides analytics to help patients and HCPs make more informed treatment and lifestyle decisions. This study assessed the experience of patients using OTR and the OneTouch Verio (OTV) BG meter and determined the extent of changes in glycemic control. METHODS: Subjects with T1DM (23) or T2DM (17) uploaded BG meter results to OTR for 12 weeks. HCPs remotely reviewed progress using OTR and delivered telephone consultations at 4 and 8 weeks based on OTR insights. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, mean HbA1c decreased by 0.4% (P < .001) and 25% of subjects had a reduction of ≥1.0%. Reduction in HbA1c was similar in subjects with T1DM and T2DM, although subjects with T1DM started with higher baselines. In subjects with T2DM, mean BG decreased significantly from 175 to 161 mg/dl (P < .001) with the percentage of above-range BG results decreasing from 33% to 24%. 80% of subjects confirmed OTR detected out-of-range glucose patterns and 84% of these subjects were able to correct the underlying pattern to get BG back in-range. CONCLUSIONS: OTR web application in combination with the OTV meter helped subjects with T1DM and T2DM effectively manage their diabetes and was associated with improved BG control over 12 weeks. Real-time visibility to subject data may help HCPs deliver focused and effective remote consultations.

Interactive Exposure With a Blood Glucose Monitor With a Novel Glucose Color Range Indicator Is Associated With Improved Glucose Range Interpretation and Awareness in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

AIMS: The ability of patients to achieve glycemic control depends in part on their ability to interpret and act on blood glucose (BG) results. This clinical study was conducted to determine if a simple on-meter color range indicator (CRI) could improve the ability of patients to categorize BG values into low, in-range, and high glycemic ranges. METHODS: The clinical study was conducted in 59 subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Subjects classified 50 general, 15 before- and 15 after-meal BG values as low, in-range, or high based on their current knowledge. Subjects then interactively experienced the on-meter CRI, which showed whether alternate BG values were low, in-range, or high. After CRI interaction, subjects repeated the original scoring assessment followed by a survey exploring their awareness of glucose ranges. RESULTS: Following interaction with the CRI, subjects improved their ability to categorize general, before-meal and after-meal BG results by 23.4% ± 3.0% (SEM), 14.2% ± 2.4%, and 16.1% ± 2.9%, respectively (all P < .001), into low, in-range, and high glycemic ranges. Improvement was not accompanied by an increase in time spent categorizing results. There was no correlation between subject HbA1c, test frequency, or duration of diabetes and ability to correctly classify results. Subjects agreed the CRI feature helped them easily interpret glucose values and improved their awareness of glucose ranges. CONCLUSION: A short interactive session with a meter including a CRI feature improved the ability of T2DM subjects to interpret and categorize BG values into recommended ranges.

A comprehensive evaluation of strip performance in multiple blood glucose monitoring systems.

Accurate self-monitoring of blood glucose is a key component of effective self-management of glycemic control. Accurate self-monitoring of blood glucose results are required for optimal insulin dosing and detection of hypoglycemia. However, blood glucose monitoring systems may be susceptible to error from test strip, user, environmental and pharmacological factors. This report evaluated 5 blood glucose monitoring systems that each use Verio glucose test strips for precision, effect of hematocrit and interferences in laboratory testing, and lay user and system accuracy in clinical testing according to the guidelines in ISO15197:2013(E). Performance of OneTouch(®) VerioVue™ met or exceeded standards described in ISO15197:2013 for precision, hematocrit performance and interference testing in a laboratory setting. Performance of OneTouch(®) Verio IQ™, OneTouch(®) Verio Pro™, OneTouch(®) Verio™, OneTouch(®) VerioVue™ and Omni Pod each met or exceeded accuracy standards for user performance and system accuracy in a clinical setting set forth in ISO15197:2013(E).

A clinical evaluation of routine blood sampling practices in patients with diabetes: impact on fingerstick blood volume and pain.

BACKGROUND: There is a perception that patients with diabetes struggle to produce sufficient blood to fill glucose test strips, including strips with 1-µL fill requirements. The purpose of this study was to determine the volume of blood expressed when these patients perform routine fingersticks using their own lancing device and sampling technique and to evaluate the relationship between blood volume and pain. METHODS: Sixty-four patients (type 1 or type 2 diabetes) performed 8 fingersticks using their own lancing device and preferred depth setting and lancing technique. Eight different commercially available lancing systems were used (8 patients/system). Blood volume and perceived pain were recorded after each fingerstick. RESULTS: The mean blood volume across all patients was 3.1 µL (512 fingersticks), with 97% of patients expressing a mean of ≥1.0 µL of blood. There was no correlation between pain response and the volume of blood expressed. Nearly all patients agreed that they could easily and comfortably obtain a 1-µL blood sample, and most patients actually preferred a larger drop size to ease sampling and avoid wasting strips. CONCLUSION: These results provide evidence across 8 lancing systems that challenge the current perceptions that patients with diabetes struggle to produce sufficient blood samples to fill most test strips, including those with 1-µL fill requirements, and that obtaining larger volumes of blood is more painful. These results are consistent with the previous literature suggesting that patients derive no real benefits from very low strip volumes and generally prefer a blood drop size that enables them to confidently fill their test strip.