Unmet needs in glucose monitoring

Pubblicato il di

GLUCOSE MONITORING IN DIABETES

A key goal in diabetes management is good glycaemic control to reduce the risk of complications, such as loss of vision, nerve damage, kidney failure, amputations, and cardiovascular disease.1,2
International guidelines recommend that glycaemic targets be tailored to individual patients (Table 1).3-5

TABLE 1: FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN ESTABLISHING INDIVIDUAL BLOOD GLUCOSE TARGETS

Age

Comorbid health conditions

Duration of diabetes

Risk of low or high glucose levels (hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia)

Diet

Frequency and intensity of physical activity Patient motivation and adherence

Social support

Life expectancy


Monitoring glucose levels is critically important to ensure good glycaemic control, particularly since glucose levels can vary from hour-to-hour.6 The hemoglobin A1c test is important for monitoring and diagnosing patients with diabetes by providing an average glycaemic level over several months.7 However, hemoglobin A1c does not accurately portray daily glucose variability and hypoglycaemic events.6 To date, patients have relied on self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to assess daily variations in blood glucose levels.

SELF-MONITORING BLOOD GLUCOSE

The development of SMBG was considered a breakthrough because it provided an instant assessment of glycaemic control.8 Current guidelines from professional organisations recommend SMBG for most patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes who are treated with insulin.3 Most patients should perform SMBG 6 to 8 times per day,3 although the optimal frequency and timing of SMBG is debated.9

 

CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING

CGM was introduced in 1999 as a new technology to measure glucose levels in interstitial fluid that exists between the cells of the body. The CGM system is composed of a disposable sensor, a transmitter, and a monitor that is about the size of a mobile phone. The sensor is inserted just beneath the skin of the abdomen or the upper arm and can remain in place for 3 to 7 days. Glucose readings are transmitted from the sensor to a monitor that is worn by the patient. The monitor displays real-time glucose levels and some also emit an alarm when glucose levels fall too low or rise too high.10 Real-time CGM has been recommended for patients over 8 years with type 1 diabetes to help lower or maintain hemoglobin A1c levels.11

 

BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING METHODS

There is evidence to suggest a positive relationship between SMBG and glycaemic control among patients with type 1 diabetes. A higher number of SMBG measurements per day has been associated with better glycaemic control and a lower hemoglobin A1c level. However results are conflicting about the the benefits of SMBG for individuals with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin.3,13.
Few patients consistently perform SMBG14-16 and those who do test several times each day frequently fail to capture information about levels that are too high or too low between tests17; leading to a non-accurate or unreliable picture of glucose control.6

Benefits of CGM include the ability to identify trends and track patterns in glucose levels, improve the detection of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, and provide information to guide treatment decision-making.

Many patients are able to reduce hemoglobin A1c levels while not experiencing a higher rate of hypoglycaemic episodes.6 In addition, CGM is associated with improved quality of life, greater convenience, reduced worry about diabetes, and improved diabetes control.18

However, it is estimated that CGM devices may be inaccurate up to 21% of the time, particularly during hypoglycaemic events and rapid changes in blood glucose levels.19 CGM is primarily used by patients with type 1 diabetes, but the reliability and validity of CGM for patients with type 2 diabetes is yet to be established.6
Patients must clip the monitor to their belt or waistband, which compromises their ability to discreetly monitor glucose levels. In addition, a lack of research on the role of CGM in the management of hypoglycaemia and the need for reimbursement are considered significant barriers to routine use of CGM in Europe.6,20


UNMET NEEDS IN ROUTINE BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING

Despite the benefits of glucose monitoring, a recent study shows that around four out of 10 people do not test their blood as often as recommended by a doctor or nurse.21 Lack of information and knowledge of glucose testing, motivational barriers, and limited behavioral skills have been found to be associated with lower frequency of blood glucose monitoring.21,22

ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO ROUTINE BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING

When used appropriately and consistently, both SMBG and CGM provide important insights for physicians and patients about
1) trends in glucose levels over time,
2) factors associated with glucose levels that are not within an acceptable range,
3) risk of hypoglycaemia, and
4) cues to manage high and low glucose levels. This information can help identify the need for treatment modifications, support patients’ efforts to better manage their lifestyle and medications, and enhance patient safety.

This reinforces the importance of continued efforts to reduce or eliminate barriers to routine monitoring. New interventions to support the integration of glucose monitoring into the routines of everyday life, with an emphasis on pain-free techniques, are required. Technological advances have the potential to significantly improve patients’ glycaemic control, reduce hypoglycaemic episodes, and enhance quality of life. These should ensure that patients have access to discreet methods of testing that are easy and convenient to perform, including the availability of small, disposable sensors. Innovative glucose monitoring systems should provide an historical perspective on glucose readings and projections for future trends and direction in glucose levels.

 

 

References

  1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in

    insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977-86.

  2. Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Fonseca VA, Thethi TK, Reynolds K, He J. Systematic review: glucose control and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med.

    2009;151(6):394-403.

3. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes–2013. Diabetes Care. 2013;36 Suppl 1:S11-66.

  1. International Diabetes Federation. Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes. 2012. Available at: www.idf.org.

  2. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes

    Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364-79.

7. Rahaghi FN, Gough DA. Blood glucose dynamics. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(2):81-94. Diabetes Center. St. Louis Park, MN. 2013.

9. Kirk JK, Stegner J. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: practical aspects. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(2):435-9.
10. Burge MR, Mitchell S, Sawyer A, Schade DS. Continuous glucose monitoring: the future of diabetes management. Diabetes Spectr. 2008;21(2):112-9. 11. Klonoff DC et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(10):2968-79.

  1. Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al; T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Evidence of a Strong Association Between Frequency of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose and

    Hemoglobin A1c Levels in T1D Exchange Clinic Registry Participants. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):2009-14.

  2. Clar C, Barnard K, Cummins E, Royle P, Waugh N; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review.

    Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(12):1-140.

  3. Mazze RS, Shamoon H, Pasmantier R, et al. Reliability of blood glucose monitoring by patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 1984;77(2):211-7.

  4. Harris MI; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycemic control in patients with type 2

    diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(6):979-82.

  5. Lecomte P, Romon I, Fosse S, Simon D, Fagot-Campagna A. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes living in France: the Entred study

    2001. Diabetes Metab. 2008;34(3):219-26.

  6. Benhamou PY, Catargi B, Delenne B, et al; Société Francophone du Diabète; Société Française d’Endocrinologie; EVAluation dans le Diabète des Implants ACtifs Group.

    Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) integrated into the treatment of type 1 diabetes: consensus of experts from SFD, EVADIAC and SFE. Diabetes Metab. 2012

    Jul;38 Suppl 4:S67-83.

  7. Peyrot M, Rubin RR. Patient-reported outcomes for an integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(1):57-62.

  8. Hermanides J, Phillip M, DeVries JH. Current application of continuous glucose monitoring in the treatment of diabetes: pros and cons. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Suppl

    2):S197-201.

  9. DeVries JH. Continuous glucose monitoring: coming of age? Eur J Endocrinol. 2012 Jan;166(1):1-4.

21. Abbott Diabetes Care, 2014. Results of an online survey answered by 9,239 people carried out between 1 November 2013 and 31 January 2014 in France, Germany, Italy,

Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway and the UK. Data on File.
22. Fisher WA, Kohut T, Schachner H, Stenger P. Understanding self-monitoring of blood glucose among individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: an information-motivation-

behavioral skills analysis. Diabetes Educ. 2011;37(1):85-94.