Search

AbstractObjective:This study used nationwide data to determine the prevalence of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among all non-institutionalized persons living in Norway and to estimate the prevalence of SMBG among diabetes patients, the frequency and cost of SMBG, and the use of different glucometers.Methods:This retrospective, descriptive study is based on data of sales of glucometer strips to non-institutionalized persons in Norway in 2008. The data included gender, age group, month of purchase, sales place, type of strips, number of packages dispensed, and cost of strips. Additionally, statistics on sales of insulin and oral antidiabetes medications were obtained from the Norwegian Prescription Database.Results:A total of 96,999 persons purchased strips, a prevalence of 2%. Approximately 70% of diabetes patients practiced SMBG. An average patient used 1.7 strips per day, and younger patients purchased more strips than older patients. Fewer than 50% of patients performed glucose measurements daily. One percent of patients used more than 10 strips daily and was accountable for 8% of total costs. Most patients used only one type of strips, but the number of strips purchased increased with the number of different strips. The average annual cost of strips was 446 € per person.Conclusions:Two percent of all non-institutionalized inhabitants and an estimated 70% of patients using diabetes medication purchased SMBG strips. A small percentage of the patients incurred a substantial proportion of the costs. This, along with the fact that over half of the patients monitor less than once per day, calls for tighter follow-up of diabetes patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackground:Instruments for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) should undergo a standardized evaluation including a user-test before being marketed. In this study the results from standardized evaluations of nine different SMBG instruments are presented, and the standardized evaluation is discussed.Methods:Approximately 80 diabetes patients using three lots of test strips participated in each evaluation. Half of the patients were educated in how to use the meter, and the evaluations were carried out by both medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) and patients. Questionnaires were used to assess the user manual and the user-friendliness of the instrument.Results:The imprecision obtained by the patients (coefficients of variation [CVs] of 3.2–8.1) were generally higher compared to that by the MLT (CVs of 2.3–5.9). Three of the nine instruments did not achieve the quality goal based on the recommendation in the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 15197 guideline in the hands of diabetes patients. The bias from the comparison method ranged from −10.4 to 3.2. There were significant lot-to-lot variations and hematocrit effects for some of the instruments. Temperature difference between the instruments and the test strip caused deterioration of the quality in one instrument. The user-friendliness was in general acceptable.Conclusions:The quality of instruments for SMBG seems to have improved during recent years, although there are still analytical problems. A standardized evaluation protocol is necessary and should be regularly revised taking into account the development of new technology and the needs of the patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]