I wrote to DTS

I wrote to DTS to see if there is any further follow up planned for their accuracy of BG machine accuracy investigation. Original article from 10 years ago is here: https://www.diabetestechnology.org/surveillance.shtml

I have a question for you. Is inaccuracy at all related to devices switching over to OTC?

They were in discussion with the national diabetes caucus when covid hit. I’ll try and find out where we are at after that mess. https://www.diabetestechnology.org/surveillanceprogram/Aug27-2018-Diabetes-Caucus-Letter.pdf

Current state of play is here:

What is “OTC”?

Thanks .

Most likely “Over The Counter”, meaning the BG meters used to check BG level from fingerstick.

This is different than what cgm measures. There is correlation, but each is measuring differently.

Use of bg meter fingerstick can help to access cgm accuracy and trends. But the cgm usually is behind the fingerstick reading when bg is falling or rising quickly.

Not sure what Mohe is looking for. There is list of OTC meters showing how accurate they are.

But in reality, many rely on CGM more, and use BG meter checks to calibrate CGM readings. This is because CGM is not directly measuring blood glucose. Hydration level can impact CGM readings.

1 Like

Thanks, @MM1 .

I use only fingersticks, using an Abbott something-or-other lite (Papillon lite in France). The company says it’s supposed to be accurate ±20%, but checking against the occasional fasting glucose and HbA1C combined with common sense, it seems to be a lot more accurate than that.

And in my HMO, it’s not OTC. We don’t pay for the gadget itself, but we do need a prescription.


1 Like

Manual finger sticks are used to validate CGMs.
We know that our manual machines aren’t producing results within the 20% range.
We know that several of our CGMs aren’t producing data that is reliable as Dexcom.

They should be validating manual machines as a first step to validating the CGMs.
People are running automation off the CGM data. We are overdue on seeing published validation of those devices. I know people who are running a MT sensor AND an Abbott in the hope that that 2 wrongs make a right.

I’d, personally, like a validation study on the results of all 3 CGMs. I feel like something like that got tied up at the BG machine level. I always assumed the DTS study was a precursor to them running a CGM accuracy study.

I’m gonna push on this if I don’t hear some reason why I shouldn’t.

@mohe0001 ,

“We know that our manual machines aren’t producing results within the 20% range.”

Checked against what?

“They should be validating manual machines as a first step to validating the CGMs.”

Validating against what?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

What are MT and DTS?

These get validated by lab. See first link for study results. FDA requires manual BG machines to produce results within 20% of a lab value because that is the most accurate standard that exists. We (are supposed to) validate our CGM values against the manual machines.

MT = Medtronic
DTS = Diabetes Technology Society

I’m lucky that I have a pretty good sense of my blood sugar. It wasn’t always the case. There was a while when I was unaware, but since I tightened control over 95% in most cases, mt sense of sugars has returned. If my cgm reads 60 I can usually feel it, if it’s 200 I can definitely feel it. I use that as a rule of thumb, but I also use finger sticks from time to time to keep it honest

1 Like