My comparison AT2 pet specific monitor & FSLite human monitor updated

I have added more information on meter reading comparisons bewteen an AlphaTrak2 pet meter and a FreeStyle Lite human meter:


I have noticed that a few people use the Alpha Trak 2 meter so I thought I would post my experiences. I have had some very helpful information on the differences between readings from an AT2 meter and a human meter from Julie and Meya, plus reading some of the posted articles. Now this is MY experience with the meters so it may not be the same for everyone, but I thought I would post it here as an example.

"I use the AT2 meter but I started to use the Freestyle Lite strips (same company) with it which are much cheaper. I did a number of test comparisons using the AT2meter/AT2 strips and the AT2 meter/FSlite strips and the results were well within an acceptable range between the two combinations. I often will do several tests at the same time if the numbers are wonky compared to the rest and the results are well within 10-15% variance. Since my Shopper's here in Canada has discount coupons and specials as well as points good for $$ discounts I have been able to get the FSlite strips at a very affordable price."


March 30 Meter comparison PM +6:
AT2/AT2 strip 10.6 (193)
AT2/FSlite strip 10.2 ( 182)
FSlite/FSlite strip 6.8 ( 122)

April 3 Meter comparison PM +4
AT2/FSLite strip 9.4 (170)
FSLite/FSLite strip 7.1 (127)

April 4 Meter comparison AM+5
AT2/FSLite strip 4.4 (80)
FSLite/FSLite strip 3.1 (55)

April 5 Meter comparison AM +5
AT2/FSLite strip 16.7 (300)
FSLite/FSLite strip 11.7 (211)

 

Hi Tuxedo Mom,

Per your advice, I too have been experimenting with using the Freestyle Lite Butterfly strips in the Alphatrak and can add these results (using AlphaTrak meter):

Test Alphatrak Freestyle Lite Butterfly

4/5/15 201 215
4/6/15 133 132
4/7/15 292 285
4/7/15 130 134


I'll keep testing but these numbers are good enough for me to buy the Freestyle Lite Butterfly strips for use in the Alphatrak meter. They are MUCH cheaper.

Thanks!
Judy&Emmy

 

I see no reason for further testing/comparison as long as you use FSLite strips with the same Code number s thos you have tested/compared

 

Thanks Larry but the FSLite strips don't have a code, hence the worry. I'll just test a little every time I buy a new bottle. I don't mind keeping a cache of Alphatrak strips for those uses.

 

When I use the FSLite strips with my AT2 meter I left the AT2 meter on the last code I had for actual AT2 strips which for me was 8. I still have a few AT2 strips left but not many. Every now and then I will do the 3 way combination testing. For me anyway it seems to work and as you said the FSLite strips are so much cheaper.

 

I left my AT2 meter on 38 for the last batch of strips - so I'm not sure how much the coding matters. Very happy to have a cheaper alternative that seems to give the same cat specific results.

Judy&Emmy

 

Very interesting results. It's good to know there's a possible cheaper alternative to the Alphatrak strips.

 

The vial for the strips should have a lot number printed on them. As long as you use the same lot number there is no reason for the comparison test

 

The FSLite strips that I have used over the last 3 1/2 months all have a 16 code, but that is for the human meter. I just left my AT2 meter at the last number that I had from the AT2 strips, which for me was 8 (I am in Canada so lot numbers may be different here than the US) which was coded for a feline. So far that has worked fine for me and any comparisons are consistent. I DO NOT change my AT2 meter to the coding on the FSLite vial.

 

I just bought freestyle strips for my alpha trak. My last alpha track code was in the 90's. This latest alpha trak code is 36. Now the freestyle code is 20. I've been able to get them to align using the test fluid at 158(at) and 160(fs) using a code of 20 on the fs.

When I changed the code for the FS the numbers changed - 148@21, 167@19, 199@15

So I want back to 20 (+4 over the code on the bottle). But at higher BG ther is a variance...

AT // FS

177 //173
366 // 387

 

That is very good consistency. Error is a % so at higher BG the numerical difference will be greater.

 

Thanks Larry. What I find interesting, is that the results are lower at the lower BGs and higher at the higher BGs. I tested two more data points since this post:
AT // FS
127//120
396//419

I think this is because I calibrated them to be equal at 160... so the FS strips have a steeper "curve" so to speak. I'm going to add a tab to my spreadsheet to graph these.

 

@Shankb how old is your Freestyle meter? The current Freestyle meters (Freestyle Lite and Freestyle Freedom Lite) do not require/allow coding and according to ABBOTT, all the Freestyle strips use code 16 on the old Freestyle meters but results will not be quite as accurate as a newer uncoded meter. ABBOTT did not however say just how much different the readings might be using an old vs. current Freestyle meter with the current FS strips. This has me curious about the "code 20" you mentioned on your Freestyle vial. I was aware of at least 3 different AT meter strip codes for cats(8, 38, 93) for the newer AT meters and a code 7 for the older AT meters so if you now have a vial of AT strips with a code of 36 for cats, I would strongly suggest you continue to calibrate for each new vial of strips (AT or FS) to ensure you are continuing to get results within an acceptable range.

 

@MrWorfMen's Mom Thank you for your post and interest. I really value your comments, especially because you are using the FS-lite strips with the AT2. For my experiment, I am collecting data using the Freestyle lite strips in a Alphatrak 2 meter. the code on the freestyle vial is 16. The "Cat" code on my AT2 strips is 37 (I just checked, I was off by 1).

I am currently just collecting data on the FSlite strips vs the AT strips in the AT2 in order to make a decision on if I am comfortable using the combination for my cat.

However, I first experimented to see if changing the "code" would help to "calibrate" them to similar readings to the AT2 strips. I have read others using the code 7, or not changing the code from the AT2 code. Conveniently (for Abbott) code 16 is not available, but I tested at 15, 18, 19, 20, 21. If I repeat the experiment I will add 37 and 7 to the tests.

Abbott recommends changing the code for different animals (dog, cat, ferret, horse, rat, mouse).. my going in ASSUMPTION was that using the same code as my current lot of AT2 strips (37) is not ideal, but using 16 would not be either since I am testing a different animal.

I set up the test using the code assigned to the AT2 meter on the FSlite strip as the variable. Based on your note above, I just repeated my exeriment using the code 37 and 7. Interestingly, 37 also looks really good. I thought the readings were linear, but apparantly, there are some "anchor points" within them. I am going to test an assumption that the 37 code is the best and start testing both strips that way to collect more data on my blood draws.

SINGLE POINT TEST WITH CONTROL SOLUTION
for a better idea of the experiment and the results ** See tab in Dusty's spreadsheet I created FSlite strip testing.

In reality, I probably just "wasted" a bunch of strips and ate up whatever savings I might get from using the FS lite strips!

 

@Shankb While I share your interest in the comparisons and the ability to use FS strips in the AT meter as a back up, I do not use FS strips in my AT meter. I am instead doing side by side testing with the AT meter using AT strips and the FS Lite meter using FS strips. There is a complete lack of information as to how the two types of meters (human vs. animal) correlate. There is so called credible information indicating the differences at low ranges but there is nothing credible to indicate how that information was obtained or validated. To add to the mystery, anything in the moderate to high ranges seems to have been totally dismissed/omitted as unimportant. While I agree that a high reading is a high reading, my mission is to get enough readings to see if any of the so called credible information about the differences in readings available holds true at moderate and high glucose ranges.

 

Whoops. Sorry for my misunderstanding. However, what you are undertaking, the comparison, is even more intriguing. If only we could entice Abbott or another manufacturer to collaborate, as I assume they also have quite a bit of data on the topic.

 

A bit of analysis on your data!
Have a look here.

I made 2 lists, one with the AT2 value predicting the FS Lite value, and one vice versa.

I sorted each of them in ascending order for graphing.
Had Excel determine the linear equation for each.
Calculated the absolute value of the difference between the predicted value and the obtained.

This lets you get an idea of how well your particular data may be used to predict the FS Lite reading from an AT2 read and an AT2 reading from the FS Lite reading.
You might plug the numbers into the formula, and the have +/- your average difference.