Human vs Pet glucometers different readings

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mharvey500

New Member
Hi everyone, I am new to the forum and I have a question about how to interpret the different readings for Pet Control HQ (57mg/dL) vs Accucheck Guide (27mg/dL) glucometers. I've been using Pet Control for a while now and I trust it but recently I purchased the Accuchek. Incidentally these were taken when my kitty was showing signs of mild hypoglycemia.
Do I need to multiply the Accuchek number x 2?
 
Mharvey500 said:
Hi everyone, I am new to the forum and I have a question about how to interpret the different readings for Pet Control HQ (57mg/dL) vs Accucheck Guide (27mg/dL) glucometers. I've been using Pet Control for a while now and I trust it but recently I purchased the Accuchek. Incidentally these were taken when my kitty was showing signs of mild hypoglycemia.
Do I need to multiply the Accuchek number x 2?
Click to expand...
Both those reading are too low. Did you give your kitty some high carb food and test again?
 
I let him eat from our other non-diabetic cat's dish so he got big dinner. He looks a lot better now. I also reduced his insulin from 3.5U to 3U twice a day. I think he is going through remission because this is the second time I reduced it.
 
Thanks for the info. Using a human glucometer how can I convert the numbers into a useful scale that would evaluate my pets glucose levels? 27 mg/dL seems exceeding low and would expect my cat to be comatose but he was only slightly hypo (lethargic). The 54 mg/dL reading on the pet glucometer seems much more realistic. The point is many pet owners are using human glucometers so they must be reliable. If I am getting unrealistic readings did I get a dud meter? I could test meter on my own blood.

Incidentally since reducing the insulin from 3.5U to 3U my kitty is acting a lot more lively. These glucometers are extremely useful. I would have had no idea what to do without it.

So assuming plasma level glucose is measured and humans have 93% blood plasma, the rest of the glucose is in the red blood cells, the reading I got on the human glucometers of 27 has been adjusted upward by the meter to add the 7% stored in red blood cells. So the plasma glucose alone is 25. But since this is a cat 53% of blood is plasma so we add the glucose stored in the red blood cells which is 47% of blood. So 25 only accounts for 53% of the total glucose so the total glucose is 47mg/dL. The pet meter reported 54mg/dL so there is a discrepancy of about 20%. That is close enough to make a judgement along with clinical observation. It's not an exact science. So I think I can use my new Accutrak meter if I multiply result by .93/.53 = 1.75 to get an estimate of the true glucose level, forgetting about the pet meter.
 
Last edited:
There is no reliable conversion factor. Many use human meters due to lower cost and easy access to strips. But they all will read lower. As long as you are aware of that (and this boards guidelines are based on using a human meter) then consistently using a human meter gives you a good idea. If you want more accuracy use a pet meter.

when you talk with tech support of the companies accuracy will vary by a percentage but under 100 it’s more a set number (for example 10% variance on alphatrak but under 100 +/- 15) so trying to calculate a conversion falls apart at the important point of low glucose
 
For a real world example (study n=1, in other words an anecdote):
This am Methos’ amps on AT was 125, rechecked 113; checked on backup meter 120. Both meters/strips checked w/control solution and passed. New vial of strips opened and back meter up coded for new vial and passed control solution check. Tested again 123 primary meter, 120 back up. With the 10% variance on AT these are all the same number and can be assumed the true lab value is within this range. (For comparison my other cat who recently had lab work done was 108 on AT and 106 IDEXX)
Because I’d run out of AT meters and still couldn’t believe the amps BG I tested him on the human meter (Precision Xtra). BG was 97.

Please do NOT use any sort of mathematical theory in converting ESPECIALLY at low numbers. When meters are designed theory and math are used but before FDA or ISO approval testing is done to prove meter works as theory would say. Human meters are tested on humans. Pet meters are tested on pets. You can call tech support of any meter and they will stress to you there is no conversion and there was no testing on any species besides the one(s) marketed towards.
I suspect this is why pet meter strips are pricey and in a few years cost may be more comparable to human meters—initial R&D /testing is costly

Before pet meters were available they used human ones knowing results would be “off” —and certainly people can continue to use them as long as they keep in mind numbers are an approximation and the lower the number the more potential error. If you are aiming for sub 100 numbers you really need to talk with tech support for your particular brand and find their accuracy, then assume any number you get is the lower end of that range. For example, AT below 100 has a +/- 15mg/dl. So 90 is most likely a number between 75 and 105. Err on the side of the lower number to avoid life threatening hypoglycemia. People using human meter have a little safety margin built in since the true value is probably higher than a human meter reads. But I wouldn’t count on that. AT users especially need to be aware you don’t have that “human meter” cushion. The number you see is very likely the true value, +/- 10% above 100 and +/- 15mg/dl below 100.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top