Formulas to convert between human and pet glucometers

Status
Not open for further replies.
BJM

BJM

Member Since 2010
Human meters read 30-40% lower than pet meters, according to research by Dr Rand.
Here is the math to estimate the value for a different meter type. I used the midpoint of 35%.

human meter / 0.65 = pet meter estimate
pet meter * 0.65 = human meter estimate

Keep in mind that meters may vary +/- 20% from what a lab would get.
 
The article posted in TR is what I've based the formula on. Probably the same data. And its what the folks in TR are now using, so I put up the correct formulas to calculate them.
 
I have found out (first hand) that what BJM says is correct.

I have AlphaTrak and ReliON Confirm. Today I poked Jack 2x and measured on both meters.

Alpha Trak = 136, ReliOn = 88

136 * .65 = 88.4 Good enough for Government Accounting. Spot on.
 
Larry,
I think you are correct as far as which meters and when the data was collected. But the protocol was updated in the past year to address the differences between human and pet meters at the "low end" of the scale.

The protocol was tested in cats using human whole-blood glucometers. If a serum chemistry analyzer or plasma equivalent meter calibrated for felines is used, the measurements at the low end of the range need to be adjusted and are 30% to 40% higher
Click to expand...

So a 50 human became a 68 on an AT meter (35% was added). It is primarily for TR followers to determine the appropriateness of reducing dosage per the protocol.
 
I just did two tests with my original AlphaTrak and my human Easy Gluco Plus meter. Both comparisons used same drop of blood from two different cats
Dulce OTJ
AT = 72
Easy Gluco Plus = 54

Badgar
AT = 377
Easy Gluco Plus = 331

The above does not seem to agree with:
"Human meters read 30-40% lower than pet meters, according to research by Dr Rand.
"Here is the math to estimate the value for a different meter type. I used the midpoint of 35%.

"human meter / 0.65 = pet meter estimate
"pet meter * 0.65 = human meter estimate"
 
My Accu-chek Aviva has never had a 30% variance. I randomly tested my foster Cecil with an Alpha the shelter had bought to show the vet the relation to what they use in their office. Usually the farthest off was around 15%. A couple of the tests.

Accu 174
Alph 191

Accu 85
Alpa 100

I don't really see a reason to do any calculation. Test with a meter and use those numbers. If someone just can't wrap their head around using a human meter, then by a pet meter. Using a formula, no matter how "accepted" just opens one up to using numbers that are way off because the formula didn't apply to their meter or that particular test.
 
When you consider that the percentages are averages of several different meters, and meters may vary as much as +/- 20%, it shouldn't surprise anyone that nothing is exactly reproducible.

And it seems the wording changes, too. Is it human meters are 30-40% less than pet meters, or is it pet meters are 30-40% more than human meters? The math is different for those 2 statements. I went with the former.

I was thinking the application was more for trying to discuss the use of human meters with vets who want one to purchase an pet-specific meter.
 
I totally agree. Just use the BG values from a good human meter at it face value. The "True" branded meters seem to be too far off based on previous posts in this forum to be useful though. Thinking that there is a general "magic" conversion from human to pet/pet to human meter is just asking from more trouble.

Melanie and Smokey said:
My Accu-chek Aviva has never had a 30% variance. I randomly tested my foster Cecil with an Alpha the shelter had bought to show the vet the relation to what they use in their office. Usually the farthest off was around 15%. A couple of the tests.

Accu 174
Alph 191

Accu 85
Alpa 100

I don't really see a reason to do any calculation. Test with a meter and use those numbers. If someone just can't wrap their head around using a human meter, then by a pet meter. Using a formula, no matter how "accepted" just opens one up to using numbers that are way off because the formula didn't apply to their meter or that particular test.
Click to expand...
 
I think most people have missed the point as to why the TR protocol chart was updated.

In the past, conventional wisdom seemed to be that the difference between a human and pet meter was "30 points". Therefore, those following the TR protocol that were using a human meter would reduce the dose when they got a nadir "under 50".
If you were using a pet meter, the protocol said to reduce when nadir was "under 80".

Apparently, they determined that there wasn't a 30 point variance on BGs at the lower ranges of normal.

So they updated the chart so that the reduction was given when a cat read "under 68" on a pet meter instead of 80. I dunno, maybe they saw reductions fail at 80 but stick on 68.

What is important to keep in mind is that other than "at the lower range" (target range for TR), the updated protocol is "silent" on the difference between the two types of meters. They don't say the "new variance" is 18 points at any other range of BG. And they don't say that the "30 - 40% difference" applies across the range of BGs.

We don't KNOW that. We're making assumptions as to what the degree of difference between the two types of meters might be at BG ranges above normal.

In reality, what the difference is at higher ranges doesn't much matter if you are following TR, or SLGS with Lantus or Lev. If you get crappy nadirs, you're going to up the dose anyway. It might matter more to non-depot insulin users who use an Alphatrack, especially if they shoot using a sliding scale. If you use Prozinc, and your scale says to shoot more at a PS of 350, there's a big difference between the old standard of "30 points" (380), and 350 plus 35% (473). That's why it would nice to know what the difference between human and pet meters is at higher BG ranges...
 
Thebudster77 said:
I have found out (first hand) that what BJM says is correct.

I have AlphaTrak and ReliON Confirm. Today I poked Jack 2x and measured on both meters.

Alpha Trak = 136, ReliOn = 88

136 * .65 = 88.4 Good enough for Government Accounting. Spot on.
Click to expand...

What if you only use the Relion? What is the math for comparing to the AlphaTrak?
 
Joanj said:
What if you only use the Relion? What is the math for comparing to the AlphaTrak?
Click to expand...
There isn't math available to convert or directly compare blood glucose numbers obtained from any meters calibrated for humans to those obtained to a meter calibrated for pets.

The information provided by the original poster in this thread was based on her own interpretation and subsequent personal assumptions of guidelines written in a tight regulation protocol using Lantus or Levemir insulins, not based on facts or research. Since then there have been many discussions scattered over the FDMB which have discussed and refuted her claim.

What we do know (from a published protocol): When following the Tight Regulation Protocol with Lantus or Levemir for Diabetic Cats the "take action" numbers are 50 on a meter calibrated for humans and 68 on a pet-specific meter. Also, that's not to say 50 (human meter) equals 68 (pet-specific meter). They (50 & 68) were simply numbers chosen by the creators of that protocol in an effort to keep kitty safe by suggesting interventation at that point so that kitty wouldn't drop any lower.

On the FDMB, all methods used for regulation were designed for use with meters calibrated for humans. However, some members use pet-specific meters anyway. Check with others using the same insulin as you're using in the insulin support groups for further guidance.
 
Yes, too much "interpretation and subsequent personal assumptions". There is no one size fits all formula. Most are more accurate at the lower end.
We're all using different meters so for me personally I want consistency and for Noah a very small sample size.
@Melanie and Smokey There is a recall on certain AccuChek strips. I can't find the original link but a quick Google search will do. It's also somewhere in Feline health.
For anyone else who has trouble getting blood the AccuChek needs only a microscopic amount of blood. The meter is free in Canada.
 
For threads older than 6 months, there should really be an auto-lock feature. It's not that hard to start a new thread. The original posters may not even be on the forum anymore.

This thread was resurrected from almost 4 years ago with no activity since then.
 
Hi Dickson - you weren't the one to resurrect it. I'm not into the blame game anyhow. Old threads should just be archived for historical purposes.
 
Unfortunately, threads can be read even when locked.

Sometimes having the thread bumped up again is an opportunity to set things straight (if necessary) rather than having someone read what could be misinformation or even dated information and believing the info still holds true today.

I'm really not sure what's best...
 
@Jill & Alex (GA) Not sure what's best? Maybe me or Jeff could be "Guest moderator of the day". I volunteer Jeff to go first. :rolleyes:
When you just don't know what to do follow these simple rules...
Your left foot out
Your left foot in
And shake it all about
You do the hokey pokey
That should put an end to this thread!;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top