FastClix lancing device: Is faster better?

While YDMV, if you want to find out the best version of any type of diabetes product just ask a group of people with diabetes. Just living our daily lives with diabetes gives us ample opportunity to crowdsource the “benefits and challenges” of any device.

I found out about the MuliClix lancing device several years ago through the diabetes online community and have been trying to make fellow converts ever since. At conferences, walks, and expos I bring friends and strangers over to the Accu-chek displays to get samples. I am the go-to contributor for posts on other websites about MultiClix fans. I even write love poems and design “Keep Calm” posters to display my love of the lancing device.

You could say then that I was intrigued but skeptical when I heard at the Roche Summit last year that a new lancing device was coming to market that had the potential to overtake the Multiclix in popularity. I waited on the edge of my lancet drum for the new device to finally become available in the US. Monday was a beautiful mail day for me when a sample of the FastClix finally arrived in my mailbox (the other stuff in the picture came from Brian).

The Fastclix is roughly the same size and shape at the MulitClix. Both devices have a slight raised edge around the lancet hole to provide extra accuracy to “the poke”. The raised edge on the FastClix is less than the Multiclix and I think this is a mistake. I could clearly feel where I was poking on the MultiClix and with the FastClix I can’t really feel the edges.

The lancet drums for the two devices are basically the same. The FastClix drums are a little smaller but they both work in their respective devices in the same way. Each drum holds six lancets. The user never sees the lancets and the drum expands when removed from the device so there is no chance of accidental poking. No one handles my lancing device except me, but I can see where this would be an advantage for a caretaker or school situation.

I read a review of the device on Stacey’s blog a few weeks ago, but still didn’t understand how the device worked without priming the trigger. I figured if I didn’t understand, that maybe there are other people who didn’t understand either so I made a little video. It’s hard to make a video that requires both of your hands when you live alone, so don’t mock my technique too much. Also, I’m not sure why but I used the term “test” in reference to checking my blood sugar. Ignore that. You don’t test your blood sugar – you check it. You can’t fail, so it isn’t a test.

Disclosure: I was sent the FastClix lancing device and several replacement lancet drums for my personal review by Accu-Chek FastClix product launch team. I was not asked to write a post and all opinions expressed in this post (and potential future love poem inspired posts) are entirely my own.


  • YOU are adorable! Thank you for this. I feel happy with my Multiclix–I don’t think I like that big plunger on the rear end of the Fastclix for deployment. Is the benefit that it self-cocks for the next test?

    • I think that is the benefit. Or that you don’t have to prime the lancet. Takes a step out of the blood sugar checking process. (I’m not sure that step was an inconvenience for me)

  • Question: Seeing as that you have to now push a plunger instead of pressing a button, is it harder? Do you think it would be just as easy for children or say, a very low, weak person to press? That would be my only concern with it.

    • It is harder to press the plunger than the button, and harder to press this plunger than the plunger on the Multiclix (expected because they are doing two different things). I don’t know if it is “enough” harder to make a difference for a child or someone who is really low. The grip on the device is totally different than how I have held any other lancing device, so that is the biggest change for me. You can see me experiencing that a little in the video. 🙂

  • Wow, your fingertips look so smooth (like they should), unlike mine which … well you’ve seen the picture. Honestly, for me there is only one important aspect to my lancing device: that it fits in the meter case. In fact, my “stock” lancer almost never leaves its case. The whole kit and kaboodle has to neatly fit in my pocket or it’s no good. Your post and video has got me tempted, but not if it means another thing to carry around.

  • OK… it’s time to comment!

    First, your video ROCKS!!! And that hand puppet? Nicely done!!

    As someone who’s NEVER clix’d the Multi-version, the Fast version was a completely new experience. It’s a decent device, but you’re right in that I didn’t like the plunger instead of a button (which my OneTouch lancet device) has. Another thing that really pushes me away is simple the length.. the one I use is half-sized, and fits into my case. Not a fan of the full pen-sized ones. Since I rarely change my lancets anyway (um, just kidding, FDA blog comment-readers…) – uh… well, the multiple lancets isn’t that big a deal to me.

    Thanks for reviewing this, with a great vlog!!

    And now, the comment ends. As does the wait. :))

  • I USED SHARPIE ahahaha

    thanks for the reviews. i’ve seen you extolling the virtues of the multiclix but we’ve not made the leap yet for the same reason mike mentions: i don’t know if it would fit inside the kid’s little kit. and she loves that little bag, so.

  • still laughing at the hand puppet! lol!

    it sounds like you still prefer the multiclix over the fastclix. is that a fair statement.

    and i LOVE that you said “test, don’t guess!” 🙂

  • I am just getting started with all of this. I am disabled due to chemicals causing brain damage. It causes my motor-controls to not work. I think this lancing device would be easier. I have one question. It looks like the multiclix can be used on your arm, etc. I couldn’t find that the fastclix could. I think I am more likely to get my arm ok than my finger. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: