Consensus guidelines for glycemic monitoring in type 1/type 2 & GDM

Defining High Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes: Comparison of Multiple Indexes to Identify Patients at Risk of Hypoglycemia

Background: International consensus on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recommends coefficient of variation (CV) as the metric of choice to express glycemic variability (GV) with a cutoff of 36% to define unstable diabetes. Even though, CV is associated with hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes patients, the evidence on the use of one particular measure of GV in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) patients as a predictor of hypoglycemia is limited. Methods: A cohort of T1DM ambulatory patients was evaluated using CGM. Number and incidence rate of events <54 and <70 mg/dL were calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of different glycemic indexes and clinical variables were performed to identify those associated with hypoglycemia. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for each of the glycemic indexes was performed to define the best index and its optimal cutoff threshold to discriminate patients with events of hypoglycemia. Results: Seventy-three patients were included. A total of 128 events <54 mg/dL were recorded in 34 patients, and 350 events <70 mg/dL were registered in 51 patients. CV was the only variable significantly associated with hypoglycemia <54 mg/dL in the multivariate analysis (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.88, P = 0.008). CV, HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin), and mean glucose were associated with events <70 mg/dL. ROC curve analysis showed that, among GV metrics, CV had the best performance to discriminate patients with events <54 mg/dL (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95) and events <70 mg/dL (AUC 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.90) with optimal cutoff thresholds values of 34% and 31%, respectively. Among glycemic risk (GR) indexes, low blood glucose index (LBGI) showed the best performance. Conclusions: This analysis shows that CV is the best GV index, and LBGI the best GR index, to identify patients at risk of clinically significant hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia alert events in T1DM patients.

Glucose Self-monitoring in Non-Insulin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

The value of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes has been debated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 approaches of SMBG for effects on hemoglobin A1c levels and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among people with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in primary care practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Monitor Trial study was a pragmatic, open-label randomized trial conducted in 15 primary care practices in central North Carolina. Participants were randomized between January 2014 and July 2015. Eligible patients with type 2 non-insulin-treated diabetes were: older than 30 years, established with a primary care physician at a participating practice, had glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c) levels higher than 6.5% but lower than 9.5% within the 6 months preceding screening, as obtained from the electronic medical record, and willing to comply with the results of random assignment into a study group. Of the 1032 assessed for eligibility, 450 were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

No SMBG, once-daily SMBG, and once-daily SMBG with enhanced patient feedback including automatic tailored messages delivered via the meter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes included hemoglobin A1c levels and HRQOL at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were randomized and 418 (92.9%) completed the final visit. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A1c levels across all 3 groups (P = .74; estimated adjusted mean hemoglobin A1c difference, SMBG with messaging vs no SMBG, -0.09%; 95% CI, -0.31% to 0.14%; SMBG vs no SMBG, -0.05%; 95% CI, -0.27% to 0.17%). There were also no significant differences found in HRQOL. There were no notable differences in key adverse events including hypoglycemia frequency, health care utilization, or insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, we observed no clinically or statistically significant differences at 1 year in glycemic control or HRQOL between patients who performed SMBG compared with those who did not perform SMBG. The addition of this type of tailored feedback provided through messaging via a meter did not provide any advantage in glycemic control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02033499.

Frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose and attainment of HbA1c target values

AIMS

Test strips for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) represent in Argentina, around 50 % of diabetes treatment cost; the frequency of their use is closely associated with hyperglycemia treatment. However, the favorable impact of SMBG on attainment of HbA1c goal in different treatment conditions remains controversial. We therefore attempted to estimate the relationship between use of SMBG test strips and degree of attainment of metabolic control in an institution of our social security subsector (SSS) in which provision is fully covered and submitted to a regular audit system.

METHODS

Observational retrospective study using information of 657 patients with T2DM (period 2009-2010) from the database of the Diabetes and Other Cardiovascular Risk Factors Program (DICARO) of one institution of our SSS. DICARO provides-with an audit system-100 % coverage for all drugs and keeps records of clinical, metabolic and treatment data from every patient.

RESULTS

The average monthly test strips/patient used for SMBG increased as a function of treatment intensification: Monotherapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) < combined OAD therapy < insulin treatment. In every condition, the number was larger in people with target HbA1c levels. Test strips represented the larger percentage of total prescription cost.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, the type of hyperglycemia treatment was the main driver of test strip use for SMBG; in every condition tested, targeted HbA1c values were associated with greater strip use. Patient education and prescription audit may optimize its use and treatment outcomes.

Beyond HbA1c and glucose: the role of nontraditional glycemic markers in diabetes diagnosis, prognosis, and management

Fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are the standard measures for diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes. There has been recent interest in nontraditional markers of hyperglycemia, including fructosamine, glycated albumin, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG), as alternatives or adjuncts to standard measures. There is a growing literature linking these nontraditional markers with microvascular and macrovascular complications. Fructosamine and glycated albumin have also been shown to improve identification of persons with diabetes. However, long-term prospective studies with clinical outcomes are lacking. Some modern laboratory assays for fructosamine, glycated albumin, and 1,5-AG have excellent performance. Expanded use of these tests has the potential to improve diabetes care as these measures may overcome limitations of HbA1c in certain patients, complement traditional measures by providing additional information on shorter-term glycemic control, and improve risk stratification for diabetes and its complications. Nonetheless, studies are needed to demonstrate if their routine use will benefit patients and improve outcomes.