No, I'm sorry. I cannot give you equivalents for 40, 80, and 100. No one can. What you can do is start making comparisons yourself using your own pet-specific & human meters on the same droplet of blood. However, even that will not necessarily be accurate after factoring in that every meter is allowed to be off by +/- 20% in the US and +/- 15% in Canada.
The protocols used on the FDMB today were written for use with human meters... which is why we we've always discouraged the use of pet-specific meters. Those using pet-specific meters are taking an unnecessary risk when using a pet-specific meter when following either of the two protocols presented in this ISG.
Because of the aggressiveness of the TR Protocol, 68 was chosen on the low end for those using a pet-specific meter strictly for safety... given how low kitties are taken before the guidelines suggest a reduction. The 18 point difference was simply created as a buffer since there's no way to determine an equivalent for 50 either. Contrary to what is usually said on the FDMB, a 50 (human meter) does not equal 68 (pet specific meter).
Less than 68 is the reduction point when using a pet-specific meter when following TR. The other reduction points... take them at face value as Bobbie said.
Make sense?
ETA: Because 40 mg/dL (human meter) is so low, if I were using a pet-specific meter and following TR, I'd probably stick with taking reductions when kitty dropped below 68, but that's just me... just my opinion. I'd rather err on the side of safety.
Thanks so much for the info in this post and the reminders about how to think about starting OTJ trials.
Just a question, though, re pet vs human meter. I do understand that the protocols here were written for use with human meters and that many people prefer human meters as the strips are cheaper. However, I'm just wondering whether you are suggesting that human meters are better than pet meters like AlphaTrak2. It's a bit scary to read "Those using pet-specific meters
are taking an unecessary risk when using a pet-specific meter when following either of the two protocols presented in this ISG."
Could you clarify what the "unnecessary risk" you're referring to is so I could understand better? Is it just that people using a pet meter need to be aware that the "take action" number is 68 and not 50, as on a human meter?
Also, as I was feeling a bit queasy about all of this, I went back and re-read the Roomp & Rand 2013 Management of Diabetic cats where they discuss the difference between pet vs human meters and readings and how to calculate insulin dose at lower readings using pet meters. In that study, they do seem to give numbers for pet meters, unless I'm completely misunderstanding them: "When glucose meters calibrated for feline blood are unavailable, it is recommended that glucometers calibrated for human blood be used. The type of meter used, feline or human and whole blood or plasma, will determine the exact cut points used to adjust insulin dose. If a serum chemistry analyzer or plasma-equivalent meter calibrated for feline blood is used (eg, AlphaTRAK, Abbott Animal Health, Abbott Laboratories, Abott Park, Illinois), the measurements at the low end of the range need to be adjusted and are 30% to 40% higher than for a whole-blood meter calibrated for human blood. The doses, when using such measuring devices, should be changed as follows: the lower limit of the range should be adjusted accordingly by adding approximately 18 mg/dL (1 mmol/L) to the value listed in the protocol in Table 2. For example, a target value of more than 54 mg/dL (>3 mmol/L) becomes more than 72 mg/dL (>4 mmol/L) when using a serum chemistry analyzer or a meter calibrated for feline use. Alternatively, use the normal range for feline blood glucose concentrations as a target when using a meter calibrated for feline blood. Most of the major human brands of glucometers now report plasma-equivalent values and these are intermediate between those measured by whole-blood meters calibrated for human blood and plasmaequivalent meters calibrated for feline blood. Be aware that test strips sold by the major human companies now provide plasma-equivalent readings, even when used in older whole-blood meters, although their accuracy and precision are not as good in the whole-blood meters."
I find the summary at the end of Tables 2 and 3 easier to understand on this: Table 2: "If a serum chemistry analyzer or plasma-equivalent meter calibrated for cats is used (eg, AlphaTRAK from Abbott Animal Health), increase the target blood glucose concentration by about 1 mmol/L, 18 mg/dL, or adapt the normal range reported for cats as the target nadir glucose concentration (eg, change 3–4 to 4–5 mmol/L, change 54–72 to 72–90 mg/dL)" and after Table 3 (for intensive monitoring): "If a serum chemistry analyzer or plasma-equivalent meter calibrated for cats is used (eg, AlphaTRAK from Abbott Animal Health), increase the target blood glucose concentration by about 1 mmol/L, 18 mg/dL, or adapt the normal range reported for cats as the target nadir glucose concentration (eg, change 2.8 to 3.8 mmol/L; change 50 to 68 mg/dL)."
They also then wrote that, "In general, with the availability of accurate and precise glucometers calibrated for feline blood, their use is recommended in preference to meters calibrated for human blood because of the greater accuracy for blood glucose measurements around the normoglycemic range. Using meters calibrated for feline blood facilitates the use of target blood glucose concentrations in the normal range reported for cats and avoids some of the confusion with human meters whether they are reading whole blood or plasma"
I'm just trying to understand, so any help clarifying this would be really greatly appreciated! I've probably just misunderstood, which is highly likely. And I do understand that the advice given here and in the stickies and protocols were written by those here at FDMB who have years and years of experience with this.
I actually came across this 2013 Roomp and Rand and the others as I found the links to them in the
TR sticky, and I was reading everything I could get my hands on when I first started to try to get my head around all of this. Not that my head is around all of this yet, by a long shot!
. I know, probably over the top 
. The webcam can tilt and pan and has an intercom. I have been known to "yell" at him to "come eat" - which, surprisingly he usually does. Haha. More than anything it gives me great peace of mind for $60. There is an app for the phone for live view as well as a desktop program to watch from it.
