How liquid drug forms of antipyretics and cough medicines affect the accuracy of glucose testing in a patient with diabetes mellitus

Introduction. The choice of drugs for the treatment of intercurrent diseases in diabetes mellitus (DM) is limited: drugs containing glucose and sucrose increase glycemia. Drug composition may also include substances that are falsely recognized by glucometer instead of glucose, which can lead to error in correction of insulin therapy. Ibuprofen and paracetamol do not effect accuracy of glucose measurements by glucometer; interference of cough medicines and excipients have not been studied.

Aim. To evaluate the effect of popular antipyretic and cough medicines liquid drug forms used in children on the accuracy of glucose measurement using a glucometer.

Materials and methods. We tested samples of antipyretic syrups (ibuprofen, nurofen, paracetamol), syrups and solutions of cough medicines (lazolvan, bromhexine). Paracetamol syrup contained sucrose; all syrups but bromhexine contained glycerol; paracetamol and bromhexine syrups contained propyleneglycol. We added a drop of each drug sample to the low- and high-glucose control solutions (CS), and then measured the glucose concentration using a glucometer. The results were compared with the reference range for the corresponding CS. Each test was repeated 5 times.

Results. Adding of antipyretic syrups to CS led to an overestimation of the results regardless of the presence of sucrose in the syrup. Adding of lazolvan solution did not distort the result; but syrup increased it. Adding of bromhexine solution or syrup resulted in the same borderline overestimation of the result.

Conclusion. Patients with diabetes should avoid using medications in syrup form, even if they do not contain glucose and sucrose, since the excipients included in the syrup may falsely increase glycemia values determined by a glucometer. Our results suggest that the use of solutions is safer. It is important to take in account that active substances in some medications can also distort blood glucose measurement results.

1. Dye AM, Alemzadeh R, Wang J, Tolley EA, Lahoti A. Intensive sick day rules to prevent recurrent diabetic ketoacidosis – An intervention that exemplifies health disparities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2022;114(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2021.10.001.

2. Wu L, Girgis CM, Cheung NW. COVID-19 and diabetes: Insulin requirements parallel illness severity in critically unwell patients. Clin Endocrinol. 2020;93(4):390–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.14288.

3. Phelan H, Hanas R, Hofer SE, James S, Landry A, Lee W et al. Sick day management in children and adolescents with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2022;23(7):912–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.13415.

4. Conti M, Meneghini E, Fumagalli G, Guidoni F, Bertuzzi F, Pintaudi B. Severe hypoglycemia caused by hydroxyurea interference on continuous glucose sensor integrated with advanced hybrid closed-loop system: a case report. Acta Diabetol. 2023;60(12):1749–1752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-023-02166-0.

5. Vitebskaya AV, Telegina KP. The effect of antiseptic solutions on the accuracy in blood glucose measurement using a personal glucose meter. Meditsinskiy Sovet. 2024;18(19):126–130. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21518/ms2024-431.

6. Tseng YW, Jiang JF, Hwang WL, Er TK. Interference of Blood Glucose Testing by an Increase in Serum IgM Levels. Clin Lab. 2023;69(2). https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2022.220616.

7. Hauss O, Hinzmann R, Huffman B. Drug Interference in Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose and the Impact on Patient Safety: We Can Only Guard Against What We Are Looking for. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024;18(3):727–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221140420.

8. Ten Berge D, Muller W, Beishuizen A, Cornet AD, Slingerland R, Krabbe J. Significant interference on specific point-of-care glucose measurements due to high dose of intravenous vitamin C therapy in critically ill patients. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;59(5):e197–e199. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1445.

9. Katzman BM, Kelley BR, Deobald GR, Myhre NK, Agger SA, Karon BS. Unintended Consequence of High-Dose Vitamin C Therapy for an Oncology Patient: Evaluation of Ascorbic Acid Interference With Three Hospital-Use Glucose Meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(4):897–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820932186.

10. Mills K, Roetschke J. Patients With SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy Can Reliably Measure Their Blood Glucose Without Interference Issues When Up-to-Date Potentiometric and Amperometric Blood Glucose Measurement Systems Are Used. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(1):261–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968211050370.

11. Phillips S, Setford S, Grady M, Liu Z, Cameron H. Post-Market Surveillance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip Demonstrates No Evidence of Interference on Clinical Accuracy in a Large Cohort of People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023;17(1):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968211042352.

12. Pfützner A, Kalasauske D, Hanna M, Sachsenheimer D, Raab G, Weissenbacher S, Thomé N. System Accuracy and Interference Evaluation of a New Glucose Dehydrogenase-Based Blood Glucose Meter for Patient Self-Testing. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025;19(2):431–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231201862.

13. Krouwer JS. Traditional Interference Experiments vs. Method Comparison Interference Experiments. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023;17(2):517–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968211059548.

14. Pfützner A, Jensch H, Cardinal C, Srikanthamoorthy G, Riehn E, Thomé N. Laboratory Protocol and Pilot Results for Dynamic Interference Testing of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;18(1):59–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221095573.

15. Bellido V, Freckman G, Pérez A, Galindo RJ. Accuracy and Potential Interferences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors in the Hospital. Endocr Pract. 2023;29(11):919–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eprac.2023.06.007.

16. Chenoweth JA, Dang LT, Gao G, Tran NK. Acetaminophen interference with Nova StatStrip® Glucose Meter: case report with bench top confirmation. Clin Toxicol. 2020;58(11):1067–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2020.1732404.

17. Basu A, Veettil S, Dyer R, Peyser T, Basu R. Direct Evidence of Acetaminophen Interference with Subcutaneous Glucose Sensing in Humans: A Pilot Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(Suppl. 2):S243–S247. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0410.

18. Maahs DM, DeSalvo D, Pyle L, Ly T, Messer L, Clinton P et al. Effect of Acetaminophen on CGM Glucose in an Outpatient Setting. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(10):e158–e159. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1096.

19. Calhoun P, Johnson TK, Hughes J, Price D, Balo AK. Resistance to Acetaminophen Interference in a Novel Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(2):393–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818755797.

20. Lyon ME, Lyon AW. N-Acetylcysteine Interference with a Glucose Dehydrogenase Linked Glucose Meter. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(5):1114–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296821999416.