Nigerian Veterinary Journal 41(3)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nigerian Veterinary Journal 41(3). 2020 Okorie-Kanu et al. NIGERIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL ISSN 0331-3026 Nig. Vet. J., September 2020 Vol 41 (3): 214 -222. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.4314/nvj.v41i3.2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Knowledge Of Validation Status Of Point-Of-Care Glucometers Among Veterinarians And Veterinary Technologists In Nigeria 1* 2 3 4 5 Okorie-Kanu, C.O. ; Okorie-Kanu, O. J. ;Akwuobu, C.A. ; Tizhe, E.V. ; Antia, R.E. 1Department of Veterinary Pathology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State.2Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria. 3Department of Veterinary Microbiology, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria. 4Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, University of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria.. 5Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. *corresponding email [email protected]; Tel No +2348038993506 SUMMARY Point-of-care glucometers (PCGs) have of recent almost replaced the conventional laboratory methods of blood glucose determination in animals. This study evaluated the level of awareness and knowledge about the use of handheld PCGs among veterinarians and veterinary technologists. Respondents to a structured questionnaire included academic staff and laboratory technologists from veterinary schools and public and private veterinarians across Nigeria. Design of the questions progressed from whether one had ever used a PCG before or not, how they knew about the PCG, the brands used, for what purposes and on which animals. Results showed that out of 209 respondents, 75 (36%) had used PCGs. Of this number, 37 (49.33%) used PCGs for research purposes, while 36 and 6.67% had used the PCGs for diagnosis of glucose disorders in animals and for both research and diagnostic purposes, respectively. The distribution of respondents that knew about the validation status of the PCGs used was 2.67%. As values generated by each PCG vary significantly in different species, there may be chances of reporting erroneous research conclusions as well as misdiagnosis of glucose disorders with consequent erroneous therapies in such species. Keywords Point-of-care Glucometers, Validation status, Veterinarians. INTRODUCTION (PCGs) in monitoring of blood glucose A vital aspect of diabetes management is use levels, in order to detect and treat glycemic of hand-held point-of-care glucometers disorders as well as to guide therapy and 214 Nigerian Veterinary Journal 41(3). 2020 Okorie-Kanu et al. dietary management in man and animals Pathologists (ASVCP) guidelines (Flatland (Brazg et al, 2013; Suvarnavibhaja et al., et al., 2010), as well as comparison studies 2014; Higbie et al., 2015). Studies showed between the new method and an already improved glycemic control in people with established method or gold standard (Jensen both type 1 and II diabetes mellitus due to and Kjelgaard-Hansen, 2006). self-monitoring of blood glucose (ADA, 1994; Kempf et al., 2010; Polonsky et al., There are concerns that many people may 2011). Also, PCGs are important in research not be aware of the importance of settings, especially in small animals such as knowledge of validation status of these some wild birds and in biomedical research PCGs before use. This work therefore was related to obesity and glucose abnormalities designed to assess the knowledge of in monkeys (Tardif et al., 2009; Higbie et veterinarians and veterinary technologists on al., 2015; Mohsenzadeh et al., 2015) as they the importance of validation status of PCGs are found to be not only useful in glucose for blood glucose determination in animals. determination with little quantity of blood, but they are also cheap, easy to operate and could generate results in shortest possible MATERIALS AND METHODS time (Lieske et al., 2002). In addition, there A close-ended questionnaire was distributed is minimal stress induced in animals because to academic and technical staff serving in of its less-invasive nature, thereby making it relevant departments and laboratories of possible to regularly monitor blood glucose colleges/faculties and Veterinary Teaching level at home and therefore reflect more Hospitals of 10 Nigerian universities accurately blood glucose levels (Johnson et accredited by the Veterinary Council of al., 2009). Nigeria, which included Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State, Michael Although these devices have been Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, successfully applied in some animals, there Abia State, University of Abuja, University have been concerns about generation of of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State, erroneous results in certain species (Cohn et University of Agriculture Makurdi, Benue al., 2000; Lieske et al., 2002; Freckmann et State, University of Ibadan, Oyo State, al., 2012; Tauk et al., 2015; Clemmons et University of Ilorin, Kwara State, University al., 2016; Okorie-Kanu et al., 2018a b). The of Maiduguri, Borno State, University of variations in the values generated by use of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State and Usman PCGs have made it imperative to validate Danfodio University Sokoto, Sokoto State. device for blood glucose measurements in Also, the questionnaires were administered diverse species of animals to guarantee to veterinarians, serving in States and accuracy of results (Burdick et al., 2012). Federal Ministries of Agriculture and private practitioners. There was no form of selection Validation process helps to minimize of respondents, therefore academic staff, erroneous test results, for proper laboratory technologists, public and private interpretation, case management and veterinarians who were willing to provide consumer safety. It involves determination the needed information constituted the of intra- and inter‐run variability, linearity respondents. under dilution and upper and lower reportable limit experiments following The structure of the questionnaire American Society of Veterinary Clinical progressed from knowing the respondent’s 215 Nigerian Veterinary Journal 41(3). 2020 Okorie-Kanu et al. designation, whether University academic through marketers, 4 (5.33 %) respondents staff or veterinarian serving in State or knew about it through their supervisors, 6 Federal Ministry or laboratory technologist (8.00 %) respondents knew it from journal in veterinary schools. Respondents were also papers, 4 (5.33 %) respondents saw them in asked in the questionnaire whether they had the veterinary clinics, 1 respondent (1.33 used a PCG before or not. If yes, how did %) each knew because of popularity and the respondent know about the PCG, the through workshop participation, 8 (10.67 %) brands used and for what purposes, whether knew because it was the only available for research, diagnosis, both research and method, 2 (2.67 %) knew about it from diagnosis and other uses, and lastly which laboratory technologists, 9 (12 %) animals the PCGs were used on? respondents knew through human use and 7 (9.33 %) respondents had no idea how the The data obtained were subjected to device was introduced to them (Figure 4). descriptive statistics using SPSS statistical package (version 16.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, With regard to the brands of PCG used, at USA). The values were expressed in least 4 brands were identified. Among those absolute and relative terms and presented in that had used PCGs, 37 respondents tables and graphs. representing 49.33 % used Accu-check Active®, 5 (6.67 %) respondents used Accu- chek Advantage®, 1 (1.33%) respondent used Easycheck® and OneTouch® while 31 RESULTS respondents representing 41.33% didn’t A total of 209 respondents returned the know the brands they used (Figure 5). On completed questionnaires (Table I), the reason for the use of the PCGs, 37 including 61 academic staff representing respondents representing 49.33% used them 29.19%, 66 (31.58 %) of the veterinarians for research purposes, 27 (36.00 %) serving in State and Federal Ministries, 75 respondents used them for diagnosis, 5 (6.67 (35.58 %) private practitioners, while 7 %) respondents used them for both research (3.35 %) were laboratory technologists and diagnosis, 4 respondents representing (Figure 1). Out of the 209 respondents, 75 5.33% used them for human blood glucose (36 %) had used PCGs, while 134 (64 %) monitoring, while 2 (2.67 %) respondents had not (Figure 2). Among the respondents did not specify what they used them for that had used PCGs, 31 respondents (Figure 6). representing 41.35% were academic staff, On the animal species for which PCGs were 18 representing 24.00% were veterinarians used, 26 respondents representing 34.67% in States and Federal Ministries, 19 used them on dogs, 1 (1.33 %) respondent representing 25.33% were private each used them on cats and sheep, 18 (24.00 practitioners and 7 representing 9.33% were %) respondents used them on rats, 1 (1.33 laboratory technologists (Figure 3). %) respondent used it on monkey, 6 (8.00 Also, among the respondents that had used %) respondents used them on two different PCGs, 6 respondents representing 8.00% animal species, 7 (9.33 %) respondents used knew about the use of PCGs for them on three or more animal species, 10 determination of blood glucose level via (13.33 %) respondents used them on human recommendations, 15 (20.00 %) blood glucose monitoring while 5 (6.67 %) respondents knew about it through respondents did not indicate the animals colleagues, 12 (16.00 %) respondents they used the PCGs on (Figure 7). 216 Nigerian Veterinary Journal 41(3). 2020 Okorie-Kanu et al. On the knowledge about validation status of the glucometers used, 2 respondents representing 2.67% of those that had used glucometers knew and got the information from journal articles (Figure 8). TABLE I Distribution of PCG use among respondents in States and Abuja (FCT), Nigeria. States & FCT Yes No Total Abia 13 4 17 Abuja (FCT) 1 6 7 Adamawa 1 2 3 Bauchi 0 1 1 Benue 5 3 8 Borno 4 8 12 Delta 1 2 3 Edo 0 1 1 Ekiti 1 0 1 Enugu 12 9 21 Gombe 1 2 3 Kaduna 19 22 41 Kano 1 12 13 Kogi 1 0 1 Katsina 0 3 3 Figure 1 Distribution (%) of respondents Kebbi 0 4 4 based on job designations.