Facts and Fiction about AlphaTrak

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tara and Nick

Tara and Nick

Member
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like so many threads lately have false information about the AlphaTrak animal meter, with eyes on making vets look bad and beans look dumb. No, I do not work for AlphaTrak, but I use the meter and am sick of it sounding like anyone who uses it is a moron or has been swindled or has fallen for a scam.

So I've compiled a short list of fact and fiction about the AlphaTrak animal meter.

  • The AlphaTrak uses the same tiny amount of blood as the Relion Micro, 0.3µL. The smallest available in pet or human meters.

  • You can get the meter, strips, and other supplies for the AlphaTrak through Amazon and other online shops. They do not have to be purchased from the vet. (My vet specifically told me to get them from Amazon as it would cost more to buy at the office.)

  • The strips cost significantly more (I pay $51 for 50) than human strips. Therefore the AlphaTrak may not be appropriate for those doing tight regulation/tons of tests every day.

  • The strips do not "sip" the way many other types do, meaning they do not draw the blood into the strip. I don't find this to be an issue at all, but some prefer the sipping action.

  • The AlphaTrak is calibrated for animals (don't forget to use the code for cats!) and is therefore more accurate, particularly at lower numbers. For example, a reading of 60 on a human meter may likely be around 90 on an AlphaTrak. For that reason, the Rand feline diabetes protocol produces two tables of BG numbers/Lantus dosages, one for human meters and one for AlphaTrak.

I hope this helps dispel some of the myths running around! This is definitely NOT the best meter for everyone, but is for some (like me!).
 
just want to add one bit of info, not that it really applies to the fact/fiction part, just something for people to know. The Freestyle Flash, Lite, and Freedom Lite also take the 0.3uL sample of blood. They were actually the first of the human meters to do so and they are made by the same company that makes the AlphaTrak. Some have actually fathomed that they may be the same meter, technologically speaking, since someone tried and successfully used the strips for the Flash in the AlphaTrak.

i think a lot of what we see here regarding not using the AlphaTrak is not about it's accuracy vs. the human meters but moreso the intended point is that if it means putting your cat to sleep vs keeping it alive or hometesting vs. not hometesting because of expenses, that there are other options that won't break the bank. a lot of people immediately think they can't treat their cat because of the expense of it.
 
That is an excellent point. I wish all vets were like mine who explained that the AlphaTrak was more expensive, and that I could use a human meter if I wanted to for cost reasons. She gave me the facts and let me choose, and clearly wasn't in it for personal gain since she told me to buy my AlphaTrak elsewhere. Unfortunately, some vets either don't know or don't care that human meters are an option.
 
Well, I wrote another post that doesn't seem to be here, now, but bottom line is that I feel obligated to tell folks of the options when they first arrive because most people are struggling with the financial costs they are suddenly facing with getting meters, strips, insulin, ketostix, new foods, etc... Some folks do come here thinking they must put their kitties to sleep because of the costs and the insistence of some vets that they ONLY use the alphatrak. Looks like your vet did things the right way and big kudos there!
 
No no, it's good for you and others to tell people of their options! That's not what I mean at all! What I mean is that people are using incorrect information to support their arguments ("it takes way more blood" or "you can only get strips at the vet" or "don't get swindled," things that are not true).
 
Tara and Nick said:
[

  • The AlphaTrak is calibrated for animals (don't forget to use the code for cats!) and is therefore more accurate, particularly at lower numbers. For example, a reading of 60 on a human meter may likely be around 90 on an AlphaTrak. For that reason, the Rand feline diabetes protocol produces two tables of BG numbers/Lantus dosages, one for human meters and one for AlphaTrak.

I hope this helps dispel some of the myths running around! This is definitely NOT the best meter for everyone, but is for some (like me!).
Click to expand...

I didn't know the AlphaTrak (which I am using) was more accurate at lower levels. That makes me even happier with it. Since I'm new to hometesting, the fact that the meter doesn't begin when a strip is inserted is helpful, too.

Kira & Max
 
Re:

"The AlphaTrak is calibrated for animals (don't forget to use the code for cats!) and is therefore more accurate, particularly at lower numbers. For example, a reading of 60 on a human meter may likely be around 90 on an AlphaTrak. For that reason, the Rand feline diabetes protocol produces two tables of BG numbers/Lantus dosages, one for human meters and one for AlphaTrak"

I don't know if I buy this claim. It may have a code for cats, but until I see the data from not just one or two, but MANY meter comparisons, I won't believe it's more accurate.

I've never believed that it was bad or innaccurate, just not more accurate to any measurable extent that justfies the extra money compared to the most accurate human meters.

I'd be interested in seeing the raw data itself. And I want to know what is beign used as the "gold standard" for measuring the meter accuracy against.
 
I think too that people are promoting human meters primarily for economic reasons (which I 100% agree with), but I find it frustrating that it seems like at times in their enthusiasm to let people know that, sometimes people make it sound like using a "cat" meter is a sin or something.

I have the iPet, generally overlooked :), which I love. The strips run $33 for 50 on Hocks, which is more expensive than the Relion Ultima I also have, but not astronomical, though I have seen them for almost double many places. My vets charged me $75 for the meter, BUT, they threw in at no charge a box of test strips and a box of lancets, so net it was really more like $20 or $30 for the meter (depending on how you price the extras).

I've seen a lot of people say that there is NO difference between cat & human meters, and I just don't buy it, and that's the part that scares me. When my cat got #s below 70-ish on my iPet he would set up camp by the food dish - he actually gained a couple (unneeded) pounds over the course of about 3 days when I switched him to canned food, because he was getting 65s a lot & I didn't connect the dots that on the meter I was using, those are potentially hypo #s, while those are ideal #s on a human meter. That's the stuff that scares me - if I had a human meter at the time I could say for sure whether he was at 35 or not on that meter, but I didn't have one, and it wasn't til hindsight that I concluded based on his eating patterns (& refinement of my understanding of potential meter differences) that he may have been in hypo #s for extended periods (though thankfully he had no noticeable symptoms other than heavy eating, and he seems fine now).

Anyhow, I'm all for promoting the use of human meters, in fact I now mostly use my Ultima because the test strips are cheaper (and individually wrapped, which is awesome since I'm not testing a lot lately). But I do wish that when people promote human meters, they wouldn't at the same time come down so hard on the animal meters/vets (not saying everyone does this all the time, but I have seen it repeatedly).

Thanks for bringing this topic up. Hope I didn't rant - it's one of my pet peeves. :-D I know that everyone here means well, and that for most people using a human meter it's all a non-issue, as Tilly & Dr. Rand's guidelines are written for the use of human meters. IMHO it would be best to frame it as "human meters work just fine" and leave it at that, rather than making comments on the pet-specific meters. And it would be nice if people generally went by Dr. Rand's notes to adjust by 30 pts based on the meter. No need for us to reinvent the wheel if she has already determined that (whether through extensive testing, or as a blanket guideline doesn't matter to me too much personally, I am happy to just follow her advice!).

BYW if anyone is interested, there is an article that addresses the technical differences between cat & human meters. The info has been posted a couple times on TT. I don't know enough to know if it is valid info or not, but if anyone is interested I can try to dig it up. In my own comparison testing my iPet ran consistently higher than my Ultima, but I don't have any control to know if the iPet runs high or the Ultima runs low (except my civies & Bix's behavior, which supported the idea that a good low on the Ultima was 50ish vs. a good low on the iPet being 80ish).
 
I have an idea, if any of you with the pet meters would be willing to try it????

would one of you test yourself with your pet meter? and your human meter? i'm curious as to what they would say. i don't think i've ever seen where anyone tested themselves with their pet meter. could be interesting?
 
Cindy + Mousie said:
I have an idea, if any of you with the pet meters would be willing to try it????

would one of you test yourself with your pet meter? and your human meter? i'm curious as to what they would say. i don't think i've ever seen where anyone tested themselves with their pet meter. could be interesting?
Click to expand...

My non-diabetic husband tested himself when we first got the AlphaTrak, and he read 165 and 166. I have no idea what human numbers should be.
 
Joanna, I can't find the article you mentioned, but here is the language from the Rand protocol regarding the difference:

NB. Blood glucose concentrations measured using a whole blood glucose meter calibrated for human blood may measure 30-40% lower at the low end of the range than glucose concentrations measured using a serum chemistry analyser or a plasma-equivalent meters calibrated for feline use (AlphaTRAK Abbott). When using these latter methods for measuring blood glucose concentrations, target glucose concentrations at the lower limit of the range should be adjusted accordingly by adding approximately 30 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L) to the value listed in the protocol below. For example, a target value of > 54 mg/dL (3mmol/L) becomes > 84 mg/dL (4.7 mmo/L) when using a serum chemistry analyser or a meter calibrated for feline use.
Click to expand...
 
The manual for the OneTouch Ultra 2 says results are plasma equivalent. The package insert for Reli On Ultrama test strips also says the results are plasma equivalent. Thus, no correction is necessary.

Tara and Nick said:
Joanna, I can't find the article you mentioned, but here is the language from the Rand protocol regarding the difference:

NB. Blood glucose concentrations measured using a whole blood glucose meter calibrated for human blood may measure 30-40% lower at the low end of the range than glucose concentrations measured using a serum chemistry analyser or a plasma-equivalent meters calibrated for feline use (AlphaTRAK Abbott). When using these latter methods for measuring blood glucose concentrations, target glucose concentrations at the lower limit of the range should be adjusted accordingly by adding approximately 30 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L) to the value listed in the protocol below. For example, a target value of > 54 mg/dL (3mmol/L) becomes > 84 mg/dL (4.7 mmo/L) when using a serum chemistry analyser or a meter calibrated for feline use.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Larry and Kitties said:
Just tested myself:
AlphaTrak Cat - 212
One Touch Ultra 2 - 110
Click to expand...

So what does this mean? Does it mean when I'm getting 300 on my meter for Arnold, he's probably 400 instead? Or am I missing the article on explaining the # differences, lol?
 
Cindy + Mousie said:
would one of you test yourself with your pet meter? and your human meter? i'm curious as to what they would say. i don't think i've ever seen where anyone tested themselves with their pet meter. could be interesting?
Click to expand...

When I tested myself (at different times), I got something like 110 on my iPet and something in the DDs (65? don't recall for sure) on the Ultima. When I tested a resting civie on the two (same civie, but at different times) I got 81 on the iPet and I think 54 on the Ultima. Since those tests weren't the same blood drop, I don't know how useful they are. Civie won't sit still long enough for the same blood drop, nor will I. :lol: (Actually, I don't have iPet strips on hand at the moment, and no plans to order them for now.)

The difference though from what I read is that human and cat blood cells are different sizes. So the difference has to do with the test strips being designed to filter the cells accurately. So if that is true, it would mean that neither meter would be 100% accurate for a different species. Which to me doesn't mean "don't use it", just means "be aware what you are using". Personally, I take ALL the #s I get with a grain of salt - between the possibility of meter inaccuracies in general, cat vs. human mysteriousness, and wonky kitty :-D I figure the #s are more rough guidelines than anything else. (Except for hypo #s, then I get a little scared!!!)

Also there is the whole thing with some human meters supposedly being artificially low at the low end so people won't get complacent and hypo. I presume that is what Dr. Rand refers to, and is the part that has affected me here in terms of "scare factor" at least. i.e, Not being sure if my kitty was in hypo #s and being told by people here not to worry about it, because in general (as I see it) cat meters are often seen in a bad light here & potential differences are discounted.

As for the question of actual meter accuracy, I suspect it will remain an unknown. Going back to the original post's topic, I wish people would just leave it that way, rather than saying "there's no difference between cat & human meters". I totally agree that it hasn't been PROVEN that there is a difference or that cat meters are more accurate. But I don't feel on the other hand that it's been PROVEN that there is NO difference, so in my view it's best to just offer human meters as an affordable and acceptable alternative. The fact the Dr. Rand & Tilly both have target #s based on human meters to me says that they are acceptable. If someone's vet is saying they MUST use a cat meter, I'd give them that paragraph from Dr. Rand & her dosing charts, rather than try to tackle the question itself of meter accuracy.
 
thepeach80 said:
Larry and Kitties said:
Just tested myself:
AlphaTrak Cat - 212
One Touch Ultra 2 - 110
Click to expand...

So what does this mean? Does it mean when I'm getting 300 on my meter for Arnold, he's probably 400 instead? Or am I missing the article on explaining the # differences, lol?
Click to expand...

My view is that you follow the #s for the guidelines you are following. So for instance if you are following Tilly, which I believe says to use a human meter, then you just take the #s at face value and follow whatever the protocol says to do based on the #s you get. If you figure in meter inaccuracy of up to 20% (? did I remember that right?), a reading of 300 could be 360 even on the same meter, so it's probably to some extent academic what the exact # is. Basically, it's too high... give that kitty some insulin! :lol:

I'll see if I can find the TT threads and post them later if I do.
 
For reference, here are the threads I was thinking of:

http://www.felinediabetes.com/phorum5/r ... 48,1761248 (has links to the explanation I had seen of the differences, which if I recall was written by a company selling a cat meter, so I took it with a grain of salt)

see mmair's post explaining the differences: http://www.felinediabetes.com/phorum5/r ... ?8,1840808 - I recall seeing this explained similarly another time as well, but couldn't find that thread, and in both cases I don't know where the poster got the info from, so am not sure how much weight to put on it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top