Evaluation of Blood Volume and Perceived Pain During Fingerstick Monitoring of Blood Glucose

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Clinical Trial

Official title:

Evaluation of Blood Volume and Perceived Pain During Fingerstick Monitoring of Blood Glucose When Using Different Currently Marketed Lancing Devices and Lancets

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT00741390
• Other study ID #: BDDC-08-001
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: August 22, 2008
• Last updated: March 5, 2010
• Start date: August 2008
• Est. completion date: September 2008

Study information

• Verified date: March 2010
• Source: Becton, Dickinson and Company
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The procurement of blood for SMBG, usually via a finger stick, is considered by many patients to be the most painful portion of diabetes therapy. This has led to the marketing of smaller gauge lancets, lancing devices with variable depth settings and blood glucose sensors that require less blood for measurement.

In this study, two main outcomes were evaluated: The first, which was assessed at Visit 1, was whether specific combinations of lancets and lancing devices would yield sufficient blood volume to allow valid assessment of diabetic subjects' glucose levels. The other outcome, assessed at Visit 2, was the level of pain perceived by subjects during lancing with specific combinations of lancets and lancing devices. During Visit 2, pain assessment was done using a Visual Analog Scale and such that for each lancet/lancing device, the lowest lancing device setting that yielded a valid BG reading for each subject during Visit 1 was used. A third outcome measure, overall comfort with lancing, was also assessed at Visit 2.

A total of 5 combinations of lancets and lancing devices were evaluated.

These were as follows:

• BD/33G = BD Lancet device/BD 33G lancets (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)

• OTM/33G =OneTouch® Mini Lancet device / BD 33G lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)

• OTM/28G =OneTouch® Mini Lancet device / OneTouch® UltraSoft® 28G Lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)

• OTU/28G = OneTouch® UltraSoft® Lancet device/OneTouch® UltraSoft® 28G Lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)

• ACC/28G= Accu-Chek® Softclix Lancet device/Accu-Chek® Softclix 28G Lancet (BGM measured with Accu-Chek® Advantage BGM and Accu-Chek® Comfort Curve test strip)

After enrollment and qualification, subjects were assigned to one of 4 intervention arms. The arm assignment determined which 3 of the 5 combinations of lancets and lancing devices the subjects would evaluate in Visit 1 (for volume adequacy) and of these 3, which 2 they would evaluate in Visit 2 (pain during lancing). The lancet/lancing device combinations assigned to each arm are shown in the Assigned Interventions Table below.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 250
• Est. completion date: September 2008
• Est. primary completion date: September 2008
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years to 70 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Must currently be diagnosed with either Type I or Type II diabetes mellitus.

• Must currently be performing self monitoring of blood glucose

• Must be between 18-70 years of age (inclusive).

• Must be able to read and follow study instructions in English.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Pregnant (self reported)

• History of poor blood circulation.

• Any skin condition on his or her fingers that prevents blood sampling.

• History of a bleeding disorder.

• Neuropathy or other condition affecting sensation in the hands.

• Self-reported blood borne infection (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B or C [non A, non B], syphilis, malaria, babesiosis, brucellosis, leptospirosis, arboviral infections, relapsing fever, T lymphotropic virus Type 1, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease).

• Currently participating in another study

• Employed by BD, J&J, Roche or the Clinical Site.

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Single Blind (Subject)

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Diabetes Mellitus
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

Intervention

Device:
• BD/33G
BD Lancet device/BD 33G lancets (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)
• OTM / 33G
OneTouch® Mini Lancet device / BD 33G lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)
• OTU/28G
OneTouch® UltraSoft® Lancet device/OneTouch® UltraSoft® 28G Lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)
• ACC/28G
Accu-Chek® Softclix Lancet device/Accu-Chek® Softclix 28G Lancet (BGM measured with Accu-Chek® Advantage BGM and Accu-Chek® Comfort Curve test strip)
• OTM/28G
OneTouch® Mini Lancet device / OneTouch® UltraSoft® 28G Lancet (BGM measured with the OneTouch® UltraMini™ (BGM) and OneTouch® Ultra® test strips)

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	TKL Research, Inc.	Carlstadt	New Jersey
United States	Thomas J. Stephens & Associates	Colorado Springs	Colorado
United States	TKL Research, Inc	Paramus	New Jersey
United States	TKL Research, Inc.	Ramsey	New Jersey

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Becton, Dickinson and Company

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Blood Sample of Sufficient Volume to Yield a Valid Meter Reading	Number of subjects in whom valid meter reading was obtained with each device configuration. The primary outcome of a successful lancing is defined as whether or not a technician is able to use the lancing system to yield a blood sample of sufficient volume to yield a valid meter reading.	Study Day 1 (Visit 1)	No
Primary	Difference in Lancing Pain for Device Pair at Visit 2. (For Subjects Assigned to Arms A, B, C Only)	In Visit 2 subjects kept the same group assignment they had in Visit 1. Each subject tested 2 of the 3 systems from Visit 1. Up to 6 pairs of lancings were performed in order to obtain 4 evaluable pairs. After each pair of lancing, the subject was asked to record the pain from the 2nd lancing as compared to the first using a 150mm visual analog scale(0mm = same pain, -75mm = max score for less painful than first lancing,+75mm = max score for more painful). A positive value on the scale (and in table below) indicates that the first device in the pair was more painful than the second.	Approximately Day 3 (Visit 2)	No
Secondary	Difference in Lancing Pain for Devices in Visit 2 Only. (For Subjects Assigned to Arm D Only)	The subjects who participated in Study Visit 2 kept the same group assignment they had in Study Visit 1. Each subject tested 2 of the 3 systems they experienced during Visit 1. Up to 6 pairs of lancings were performed in order to obtain 4 evaluable pairs.; After each pair of lancing, the subject was asked to record the difference in the pain they perceive between two lancing systems using the 150 mm visual analog scale. A positive value on the scale (and in the table below) indicates that the first device in the pair was more painful than the second.	Approximately Day 3 (Visit 2)	No
Secondary	Reported Device Preference Within Lancing Pair at Visit 2	After each pair of 4 lancings, the subject was asked: "Which of the two devices did you find more comfortable, overall?" The choices were: first lancing, second lancing or equivalent. The "Stated Preference" row indicates # of lancing pairs in which one device was preferred over the other device while the 2 rows below indicate the # of pairs in which each device was preferred. First and second device refers to the 1st and 2nd devices identified in column headers, not the device order during testing. The "No Preference" row includes lancing pairs with preference of "equivalent" or no answer.	Approximately Day 3 (Visit 2)	No