Error in Roomp and Rand

Status
Not open for further replies.

dbdb

Member Since 2013
There seems to be a fairly serious typo in the official Roop and Rand protocol http://felinediabetes.com/Roomp_Rand_2008 dosing_testing protocol.pdf

I don't know if people are using whole blood or serum based meters, I suspect the latter as they seem easily the most common. If you are then as I read it you should be using table 3B in R&R not 3A.

In table 3B under the 'change in dose' column it switches back to the '50-100' used in 3A when I'm sure it should really say '80-130'.

I'm surprised both that this error has been made and that no one seems to have spotted it. Or maybe I have read it wrongly?
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

I'd always read it as "3a" was if you're using a human meter, and "3b" if using a meter specifically designed for cats, like an Alpha track.
But let me see if I can find a longtime Protocol user to help out.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasm-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.
 
Larry and Kitties said:
All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasm-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.

A human meter calibrated to display the plasma equivalent is surely a plasma (serum) meter for the purposes of Roop and Rand isn't it? So 3B. Has everyone with a meter calibrated for plasma been using 3A???? From R&R:

"NB. It is very important to note that blood glucose concentrations measured using a whole blood
glucose meter calibrated for human blood may measure 30-40% lower in the low end of the range than
glucose concentrations measured using a serum chemistry analyser or a plasma-equivalent meter calibrated
for feline use. Therefore, if using a meter calibrated for feline use (eg. AlphaTRAK, Abbott
Laboratories, CA, USA), or a serum chemistry analyzer, add approximately 30 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L)
to the target glucose concentrations (see Table 3B)."


But anyway the error is independent of the question of which table to use (albeit it only affects table 3B users).
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Why not go to the vet, test your kitty using your meter, keep that number, have vet draw blood and send out to a lab (not their machine at work) and as soon as vet has gotten blood you then retest your cat and write down that number. Then when the lab report comes back see how close or far off you are with your meter and the lab result. I did that with my trusty old One Touch Ultra and was only off 8 points and it was either Antech or IDEXX lab result.

You can also run a fructosamine after you have a good average showing on your meter and look at what the fructosamine result shows. I also did that with two of mine when I had gone to using the Elite and fructosamine came back as fair but the overall averages on my meters were good. Went back to my OTU, dosed according to those readings,waited quite a while and ran a fructosamine on them again and this time results came back Excellent.
 
Hope + (((Baby)))GA said:
Why not go to the vet, test your kitty using your meter, keep that number, have vet draw blood and send out to a lab (not their machine at work) and as soon as vet has gotten blood you then retest your cat and write down that number. Then when the lab report comes back see how close or far off you are with your meter and the lab result. I did that with my trusty old One Touch Ultra and was only off 8 points and it was either Antech or IDEXX lab result.

Thats a good idea but both my cats (included the non diabetic one) doubled their BG just by being put in a a cat cage and then a car. And that was without actually arriving at a vets locked in a cage with dogs around. We are lucky in that we have two cats brother and sister so I can compare the diabetic one with the other, a 'control' if you like.

Anyway the 2 mains points remain:

1) People seem to be using R&R table 3A when perhaps they should have been using 3B
2) Table 3B contains a typo which significantly alters the recommendations.

I think that is quite serious but maybe it is just me, eveyone seems happy.

One other thing, looks like meters can be 20% out anyway: http://www.felinediabetes.com/FDMB/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=96674&p=1047640#p1047640 Luckily we have a control cat to test on but others may be relying on quite wrong readings.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Even my very untrained eye sees what you mean/are saying. That could be significant in a TR protocol I would think. 50 v 80 is a big difference in terms of a reading and so if it is a typo, shouldn't someone know about it so they can correct it?

What confuses me when I read this whole thing is the 10% difference using meters calibrated for human blood (whole like Bayer Contour which is what I am using) and yet they contradict that in the next few sentences when they say it could be 30-40% difference on the lower end. What constitutes lower end? Under 100? Under 200? Confusing!
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Larry and Kitties wrote:
All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasm-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.


A human meter calibrated to display the plasma equivalent is surely a plasma (serum) meter for the purposes of Roop and Rand isn't it? So 3B. Has everyone with a meter calibrated for plasma been using 3A????

I take what Larry said as that the human meters we all use take the whole blood/plasma issue into account, and that people using human meters should be using "3A", not "3B"

But really, if there's a question about any possible discrepencies, the best source of the explanation would be University of Queensland? The protocol you linked to is written on their Letterhead:
CENTRE FOR COMPANION ANIMAL HEALTH
The School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland
ww.uq.edu.au/ccah; +617 3365 2122

As I understand it, anyone using a human meter is using the "50" and anyone using the pet specific meters is using "80".

It should also be noted that in the sticky for the TR Protocol is this note:
Many Lantus and Levemir users in this forum have been successful following a somewhat modified version of this Tight Regulation Protocol for the last few years. These "general" guidelines are based on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences of laypersons frequenting the forum.
"General" Guidelines:
Hold the initial starting dose for 5 - 7 days (10 - 14 consecutive cycles) unless the numbers tell you otherwise. Kitties experiencing high flat curves or prone to ketones may want to increase the starting dose after 3 days (6 consecutive cycles).
Each subsequent dose is held for a minimum of 3 days (6 consecutive cycles) unless kitty earns a reduction (See: Reducing the dose...).
Adjustments to dose are based on nadirs with only some consideration given to preshot numbers.

Increasing the dose:
Hold the dose for 3 - 5 days (6 - 10 consecutive cycles) if nadirs are less than 200 before increasing the dose by 0.25 unit.
After 3 days (6 consecutive cycles)... if nadirs are greater than 200, but less than 300 increase the dose by 0.25 unit.
After 3 days (6 consecutive cycles)... if nadirs are greater than 300 increase the dose by 0.5 unit.

Reducing the dose:
If kitty drops below 40 (long term diabetic) or 50 (newly diagnosed diabetic) reduce the dose by 0.25 unit. If kitty has a history of not holding reductions well or if reductions are close together... sneak the dose down by shaving the dose rather than reducing by a full quarter unit. Alternatively, at each newly reduced dose... try to make sure kitty maintains numbers in the normal range for seven days before reducing the dose further.
If an attempted reduction fails, go right back up to the last good dose.
Try to go from 0.25u to 0.1u before stopping insulin completely.

Random Notes:
Because of the cumulative nature of Lantus and Levemir:
An early shot = a dose increase.
A late shot = a dose reduction.
A "cycle" refers to the period of time between shots. There are 2 cycles in one day when shooting twice a day.
Sometimes a dose will need to be "fine tuned" by adding some "fat" or "skinny-ing up" the dose.

Using a weight based formula for determining a starting dose of Lantus or Levemir when following the Tight Regulation Protocol:
the formula is 0.25 unit per kg of the cat's ideal weight
if kitty is underweight, the formula frequently used is 0.25 unit per kg of kitty's actual weight
if the cat was previously on another insulin, the starting dose should be increased or decreased by taking prior data into consideration
Online Calculator for Converting Pounds to Kilograms

There are circumstances such as ketones present, an unusually low preshot number, a caregiver leaving the cat with a sitter, relatively high flat curves, loss of appetite, infection, a schedule change, ability to monitor, etc. which may call for adjustments to these guidelines.

These are "general" guidelines which have worked for many cats.
Every Cat Is Different. Learn how YOUR cat responds to insulin.
We are laypersons - not veterinarians. Please discuss dosing, methods, and care for your cat with your veterinarian.

The protocol is a set of guidelines, not something etched in stone. People veer from them as needed, and the most important thing to keep in mind is ECID. That "C" usually stands for "cat", but in many cases is can apply to "Caregiver" as well.
 
Carl & Bob said:
Larry and Kitties wrote:
All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasm-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.


A human meter calibrated to display the plasma equivalent is surely a plasma (serum) meter for the purposes of Roop and Rand isn't it? So 3B. Has everyone with a meter calibrated for plasma been using 3A????

I take what Larry said as that the human meters we all use take the whole blood/plasma issue into account, and that people using human meters should be using "3A", not "3B"

But really, if there's a question about any possible discrepencies, the best source of the explanation would be University of Queensland? The protocol you linked to is written on their Letterhead:
CENTRE FOR COMPANION ANIMAL HEALTH
The School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland
ww.uq.edu.au/ccah; +617 3365 2122

As I understand it, anyone using a human meter is using the "50" and anyone using the pet specific meters is using "80".

I'm getting a little concerned now (not concerned enough to call Australia but I have emailed them). My BBraun meter manual says "Plasma-calibrated measuring devices such as the Omnitest® 3 show glucose levels in plasma.
On average, the measured values are 12 % higher than the values in whole blood." My other meter manual says "Both GlucoMen® LX sensor and GlucoMen® LX ß-Ketone sensor are calibrated against plasma"

The R& R paper says "Measurements from meters calibrated for human blood which provide plasma equivalent values are approximately 10% higher" and, as I read it, to use table 3B.

That seems to me that for both my meters I should use table 3B. My meters are commonplace. But everyone else seems to be using table 3A.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Doesn't matter if your cat gets stressed at the vets, majority do.........what I meant was to get your cat there and when the vet is ready, do a test, let the vet draw blood then for the lab, then test your cat again. Two of your tests with the lab test done in-between. I was not looking for a good bg, just a bg to compare with outside lab and see how close or far apart the numbers were.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Hope + (((Baby)))GA said:
Doesn't matter if your cat gets stressed at the vets, majority do.........what I meant was to get your cat there and when the vet is ready, do a test, let the vet draw blood then for the lab, then test your cat again. Two of your tests with the lab test done in-between. I was not looking for a good bg, just a bg to compare with outside lab and see how close or far apart the numbers were.
Yes I see your point but my issue is not really whether my meter is accurate - I have two, they are good makes and I have a control cat to test them on. I think my vet uses a plasma calibrated meter like mine but the test proposed would raise more answers than questions for me - if the vets and my meter are the same should we use table 3A or 3B? If 3B what about the typo?

Why I started this post is to try and pin down (a) an apparent error in R&R table 3B and (b) whether we should be using table 3A or 3B.

Worryingly no ones seems sure on (b). You may be using calculations for dosing decisions that are 60% out (80 instead of 50).
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

The FDMB "modified" protocol uses 3a, and although I wasn't here when people first started using it, as far as I know we always have. The dose reduction is given at below 50 for a newly diagnosed cat, and below 40 for a long term diabetic. The only TR people that use "below 80" are those using a pet meter rather than a human one.
I can't be positive but I'm guessing the folks in the German Katzen forum follow the same guidelines.

I guess people don't see the same thing you're seeing. I thought Larry's response addressed the issue -
All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasma-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Well, when I first came on FDMB in '98 the meters being used were human meters. Animal calibrated meters (money ploy IMHO) didn't come out for quite a few years. Cats did just fine on human meters. I also never compared my meter with the vets meter.....I compared it to either Antech or IDEXX lab results. I also did many test comparisons when AlphaTrak first came out using 9 meters at the same time on the one poke. Mishka would always give me the blood on one poke. I am not impressed with the Alpha Trak and there were too many readings where AT would be higher/lower than other meters. I do not add or subtract what my meter gives me on my cats....I go with my meter.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

Carl & Bob said:
The FDMB "modified" protocol uses 3a, and although I wasn't here when people first started using it, as far as I know we always have. The dose reduction is given at below 50 for a newly diagnosed cat, and below 40 for a long term diabetic. The only TR people that use "below 80" are those using a pet meter rather than a human one.
I can't be positive but I'm guessing the folks in the German Katzen forum follow the same guidelines.

I guess people don't see the same thing you're seeing. I thought Larry's response addressed the issue -
All the human meters that I have seen are whole-blood meters. The instructions say that they are calibrated to display the plasma-equivalent to allow direct comparison to lab values.

I don't think that is right (both quotes above). It seems to me that most human meters now are calibrated for plasma not human blood (but maybe that is just a European thing?) . If so the pet meter v human meter issue is a red herring - my human meters are both plasma calibrated. I read R&R as saying therefore I should be using table 3B not 3A.

R&R says "These meters [used to devise table 3B] measure blood glucose concentration in whole blood and are calibrated for use with human blood. Measurements from meters calibrated for human blood which provide plasma equivalent values are approximately 10% higher. NB. It is very important to note that blood glucose concentrations measured using a whole blood glucose meter calibrated for human blood may measure 30-40% lower in the low end of the range than
glucose concentrations measured using a serum chemistry analyser or a plasma-equivalent meter calibrated for feline use. Therefore, if using a meter calibrated for feline use (eg. AlphaTRAK, Abbott Laboratories, CA, USA), or a serum chemistry analyzer, add approximately 30 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L) to the target glucose concentrations (see Table 3B)."

I think my human meter calibrated for plasma is what R&R are calling "a meter calibrated for feline use". Admittedly is not clear, R&R should have said "or a plasma-equivalent meter" after "or a serum chemistry analyzer" in the quote above. That is what I think they meant though. Incidentally the switch from talking about 10% to 30% doesn't help matters.

Much clearer though is the typo in table 3B, I can't see any other explanation except that it is a typo. Admittedly it is only a problem if you are using table 3B but I think a lot of you (with human plasma calibrated meters) should be using 3B.
 
Re: Error in Roop and Rand

dbdb said:
Much clearer though is the typo in table 3B, I can't see any other explanation except that it is a typo. Admittedly it is only a problem if you are using table 3B but I think a lot of you (with human plasma calibrated meters) should be using 3B.
actually most of us here do not use those tables. We use our modified version of the protocol as a guideline. The modified protocol is closely based on the Tight Regulation Protocol for Lantus and Levemir, but tailored based on what our experience has shown to be successful for the majority of cats. Once we know our individual cat we can adjust based on what works best for them. Some people who are using animal-calibrated meters do reduce the dose if the cat falls below 80, but many find that to be too conservative for their cat, so they may choose a different number. ECID.

You may be right, though, that the meters in UK might be different than US meters. The ones you mention that you say are commonplace, I have never heard of. Also, the meter companies have made HUGE advancements in the past two years and most are starting to change their test strip technology to exclude more of the extraneous "stuff" that can affect blood glucose readings. Right now, there are whole blood meters using whole blood strips, there are plasma-equivalent meters using plasma-equivalent strips, and there are whole blood meters using plasma-equivalent strips. Within those categories, there are 4-5 common (and some other less common) different methods in use for exactly what is measured within the blood. Talk about mind-spinning! But that is why it is so important to focus not on exact numbers, but to base your decisions on your own data. All of the technologies will fall within a certain range, but if you get too hung up over whether a number is really 48 or 54, you'll drive yourself crazy. Common sense can be helpful. ;-)

That said, I agree with Carl that if you have a concern about the document published by University of Queensland, then they would be the appropriate ones to contact.

FYI - it's "Roomp," not "Roop."
 
Libby and Lucy said:
...All of the technologies will fall within a certain range, but if you get too hung up over whether a number is really 48 or 54, you'll drive yourself crazy. Common sense can be helpful. ;-)
But is not 48 or 54, its 50 or 80. That is a huge difference
Libby and Lucy said:
That said, I agree with Carl that if you have a concern about the document published by University of Queensland, then they would be the appropriate ones to contact.
Yes as mentioned I have emailed them. No reply as yet, I will chase up. Meantime people are using R&R, or as you say protocol based on it, which might be 60% out.
Libby and Lucy said:
FYI - it's "Roomp," not "Roop."
Thanks I have now corrected my typo.
 
Libby and Lucy said:
Some people who are using animal-calibrated meters do reduce the dose if the cat falls below 80, but many find that to be too conservative for their cat, so they may choose a different number. ECID.

You may be right, though, that the meters in UK might be different than US meters. The ones you mention that you say are commonplace, I have never heard of. Also, the meter companies have made HUGE advancements in the past two years and most are starting to change their test strip technology to exclude more of the extraneous "stuff" that can affect blood glucose readings. Right now, there are whole blood meters using whole blood strips, there are plasma-equivalent meters using plasma-equivalent strips, and there are whole blood meters using plasma-equivalent strips. Within those categories, there are 4-5 common (and some other less common) different methods in use for exactly what is measured within the blood. Talk about mind-spinning!


I think this may be getting unnecessarily complicated. The 'animal' or 'human' meter issue is actually a 'fish' (to be specific, a red herring). The key is simply whether your meter is calibrated for plama or whole blood. I don't/can't know what meters you all have but I did have a little look around the web and came across this useful info on meters:

"Plasma Glucose Meters and Whole Blood Meters

Until the last couple of years, all blood glucose (blood sugar) meters read the glucose level in your blood sample as whole blood. Then several years ago one manufacturer developed a meter calibrated to read the blood glucose sample as if it were plasma. Why? Because the results of blood samples taken from your vein at your doctor's office or lab are reported as plasma. By having the meter record results as plama glucose, you and your healthcare team can more easily compare your lab tests with your blood glucose meter results. Several other meter manufacturers subsequently followed suit, so that today most newer meters provide blood glucose (sugar) readings as plasma glucose readings.
" http://www.joslin.org/info/plasma_glucose_meters_and_whole_blood_meters.html

This makes me think most of you are actually using human meters calibrated for plasma. In which case you should not be using Roomp and Rand table 3A or any protocol based on 3A. You should be using 3B or a protocol based on it. This means, for example, reducing the dose immediately if the cat drops once below 70mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L) instead of Table 3A's 40mg/dL (2.2mmol/L). Quite a difference.
 
Jill & Alex said:
dbdb said:
I'm getting a little concerned now (not concerned enough to call Australia but I have emailed them).
what was the response to your email?
Nothing yet, not even a read receipt. I will send another, there were a coupld of different addresses to use. That email was about the typo in table 3B though, not about plasma v whole blood calibrated meters (which is not an error by R&R). Perhaps I shoudl have done this as 2 different topics.

Now that I am begining to realise how serious an issue the plasma v whole blood meter issue is and how many people may be making decisions on, say, 50 when they should be doing it on 80, I might start a new thread - "what is your meter telling you". In fact I'll fire off a poll now.
 
you're free to do whatever you want, but it might be worth waiting until you receive a response to your inquiry.
otherwise, it's a bit like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. :?
 
Jill & Alex said:
you're free to do whatever you want, but it might be worth waiting until you receive a response to your inquiry.
otherwise, it's a bit like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. :?
No you have misunderstood my posts. All of them I think.

I am only asking Roomp and Rand if what looks very like a typo in their table 3B really is a typo. Thats is absolutely nothing to do with whether people are using plasma calibrated meters or whole blood calibrated ones, and if they even know. R&R are quite clear about the difference, there is no error I can see as regards that.

Sorry I should have done these as two different posts. I didn't expect two such simple issues to excite such confusion. Anyway I have now split them, please treat this thread as solely about the typo in table 3B and my new post & poll "what is your meter telling you" http://felinediabetes.com/FDMB/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=98282" as just about the difference (and importance) between plasma and whole blood calibration.

Incidentally I don't think you yelling fire about yelling fire helps but anyway as I said it is your simple misunderstanding.
 
Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems highly unlikely, in my opinion, that thousands of people both here, and on the German forum, have missed a "typo" since it was published. Not to mention all the people who have used the protocol and the vets that have suggested it's use who don't belong to either forum.

So it is sort of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater if you're calling into question how people have been or are following the published protocol, especially any new members who happen to read any of the threads in the Health forum where you've raised the issue.
 
Carl & Bob said:
Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems highly unlikely, in my opinion, that thousands of people both here, and on the German forum, have missed a "typo" since it was published. Not to mention all the people who have used the protocol and the vets that have suggested it's use who don't belong to either forum.

So it is sort of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater if you're calling into question how people have been or are following the published protocol, especially any new members who happen to read any of the threads in the Health forum where you've raised the issue.

If it is a typo (and I can't see how it isn't otherwise the paper is inconsistent with itself) it only affects table 3B which may only be those people using feline calibrated meters. I suspect there are very few of them. But anyway thousands of people do get things wrong otherwise there would be no history to speak of.
 
Jill & Alex said:
you might want to read through the current thread, Glucometer Accuracy Problems Acknowledged By FDA, Industry, in the Think Tank Forum. the member posting as "Kirsten" is the Roomp in the Roomp and Rand Protocol. while the thread does not deal directly with the issues you've raised, the thread could possibly offer you a little more insight.
Accuracy (or lack of) is an entirely different subject, let's not chuck any more red herrings in here please I'm finding it difficult to keep track of just the two seperate issues I've raised (typo in R&R and plasma v whole blood v feline meters)
 
If it is a typo (and I can't see how it isn't otherwise the paper is inconsistent with itself) it only affects table 3B which may only be those people using feline calibrated meters. I suspect there are very few of them. But anyway thousands of people do get things wrong otherwise there would be no history to speak of.

Then my suggestion, even better than sending an email, is to PM Kirsten here. Tell her you think she's got a typo in the protocol, and see what she says. Or invite her to just post in this thread.

If you haven't dropped in the TT forum and read the thread a couple people have steered you towards, she said this there:
It is not just newbies. The current problem on the German Forum is that there are a couple of "experienced" members that insist that because they measure a particular blood glucose concentration with Glucometer Model X and then another with Glucometer Model Y (presumably with the same drop of blood), that one can extrapolate this to all glucometers of these particular types.

These particular people also believe that there is a significant difference between plasma-calibrated and the old whole blood glucometers (which have now been phased out in Europe) at the low end of the target range. Which there is not when one take the accuracy issue into account.

When I mention that FDMB has been using the TR protocol "as is" for at least 5 years with plasma-calibrated meters and it works very well, these members just reiterated that they personally measured something different.... Sigh.

There's one table for people using "feline" meters, and one for everyone else. And like Jill pointed out, nobody here uses the tables anyway. "Our" protocol doesn't point people to either table. What it does is tell people that if they see a number under 50 on a human meter, reduce the dose by .25u. And if they use a pet meter, reduce if under 80. It doesn't put any "fudge factor" in place that takes meter accuracy into account. IOW, it doesn't say "yeah, that 52 could really be a 42 given meter variance, so go ahead and reduce". It's pretty cut and dried.
Beyond that, it's nothing more than a set of guidelines. If somebody wants to use "80" as their line-in-the-sand for reducing a dose, they can do that. If your big concern is that 50 is too low because you believe the BG at that time is really 80, then go ahead and reduce the dose and see what happens. My gut says that the liklihood of the reduction succeeding would be lower, but you'd have to try it and see for yourself. Personally, I used a Relion Micro which displays a "plasma" reading. Twice I saw numbers below that. A 40 and a 42. I took those numbers at face value, period. However, I don't for a second believe that Bob's BGs at the time were really 10 and 12. He'd have been dead if that were the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top