Question about Reference Ranges/Alphatrak

[Critter Mom]

Hi all,

I get confused about converting some of the human meter reference points and their Alphatrak equivalents. In particular, I'd be very grateful if someone could give me the generally accepted FDMB Alphatrak equivalent of 100mg/dL on a human meter.

 

[BJM]

Human meter estimate = 0.65 * AlphaTrak

Human meter / 0.65 = AlphaTrak estimate

Human meters read 30 - 40 % lower than pet meters; these formulas split the difference. They do not take into account the +/- 20% variability from what a lab might get.

Enter the numbers you get in your spreadsheet; do not convert.

 

[Larry and Kitties]

Here is one data point. Because the accuracy of the pet and human meters is +/-20% if is really impossible to specify a conversion
9-14-2014
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

 

[Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)]

Like Larry said, it's just one data point. Personally, I don't figure meter variance into the equation. I take the numbers at face value.

Bottom line? 100 on an AT meter falls squarely into the range of "normal BG for a cat".

You can call it about a 65 on a human meter or an 80 for that matter, but it's still a great normal BG number.

 

[Critter Mom]

Thanks for the replies. I think I know what to use for what I'm after now.

I posted the original question in a bit of a hurry. The reason I was looking for a guide on the 100 mg/dL value is that I saw a very useful post on a TR group thread that said keeping the BG under 100 was recommended for cats working towards possible remission. I use the reference ranges in the published TR protocol to monitor Saoirse's progress, but the "below 100" seemed to be an additional valuable BG target reference point per the contents of the post. I find it valuable to keep a little list of key human meter mg/dL to Alphatrak mmol/L conversions to hand so that when I read posts use mg/dL target values it's easier to understand how the posts relate to Saoirse's situation (compared to having to do the mg/dL to mmol/L conversions all the time). I wanted to find a guide value for the 100mg/dL to add to my little list.

I've got a two-tier conversion to do since my meter is an Alphatrak calibrated for mmol/L. Doing the math:

Approximate Alphatrak equivalent of human meter/dL value:

100 / 0.65 = 154 mg/dL

Convert mg/dL value to mmol/L:

154 / 18 = 8.6 mmol/L

Our vet gave me 3.9 - 8.3 mmol/L as the euglycaemic range for non-diabetics. The threshold value calculated above is in the same ballpark as the upper limit of the euglycaemic range. I already use the vet-specified 8.3 as a key threshold for monitoring purposes, so it looks like I'm doing the right things.

That's great. I now have the Alphatrak mmol/L reference number for my list. Also, it will be much easier to understand posts that quote 100mg/dL (human meter) as a key reference point in the future because I understand its clinical significance. Thanks for your help!