Quality assessment of glycemic control and management of diabetes mellitus: history, main methods and clinical aspects of effective use in real practice

• Olga A. Mishra
• Anna O. Nevolnikova
• Ekaterina A. Tertychnaya

Abstract

The effective management of diabetes meliitus (DM) depends on the quality of glycemic control assessment. To date, the main methods for monitoring blood glucose levels include the determination of glycated hemoglobin, selfmonitoring blood glucose with glucometers, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The paper presents the historical aspects, advantages and limitations of each method in clinical use. Glycated hemoglobin as an integral indicatordoes not reflect glucose fluctuations during a certain time interval, periods of hypo- and hyperglycemia. Innovative methods of continuous glucose mounting allow to evaluate glycemic fluctuations during the day in detail and choose individual treatment tactics for patients with DM in each clinical case. It is necessary to determine the indications for conducting CGM and standardize its basic parameters. Education and motivation of patients significantly increase the effectiveness of the use of CGM in actual clinical practice.

Keywords:glycated hemoglobin, selfmonitoring of blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring, diabetes mellitus

References

1. Ametov A.S. Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Problems and solutions. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2015. (in Russian)

2. IDF Atlas, 2017.

3. Diabetes mellitus: diagnosis, treatment, prevention. In: I.I. Dedov, M.V. Shestakova. Moscow: Meditsinskoe informatsionnoe agentstvo, 2011. (in Russian)

URL: http://eunidiaacademia.ru/files/fileUploader/ucebnik2.pdf

4. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes oh the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 977-86.

5. Dreval’ A.V., Dreval’ O.A., Starostina E.G. Continuous monitoring blood glucose level in clinical practice and new methods for its analysis. Problemy endokrinologii [Problems of Endocrinology]. 2013; (4): 41-9. (in Russian)

6. Klimontov V.V., Myakina N.E. Glycaemic variability: a tool for assessing the quality of glycaemic control and the risk of complications. Sakharniy diabet [Diabetes Mellitus]. 2014; (2): 76-82. (in Russian)

7. Standards of specialized diabetes care. 8th ed. In: I.I. Dedov, M.V. Shestakova, A.Yu. Mayorov. Moscow, 2017. (in Russian)

8. Antsiferov M.B., Sherntaner G. Current approaches to the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the era of new data on cardiovascular safety. Farmateka [Pharmateca]. 2016; (16): 8-16. (in Russian)

9. Little R.R. Glycated hemoglobin standardization - National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) perspective. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2003; 41 (9): 1191-8.

10. Jeppsson J.O., kobold U., Barr J., et al. Approved IFCC reference method for the measurement of HbA1c in human blood. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2002; 40: 78-89.

11. Clarke S.F., Foster J.R. The history of blood glucose meters and their role in self-monitoring of diabetes mellitus. Br J Biomed Sci. 2012; 69: 83-93.

12. Danne T., Nimri R., Battelino T., et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40: 1631-40.

13. Grady M., Katz L.B., Strunk C.S., et al. Examining the impact of a novel blood glucose monitor with color range indicator on decision-making in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and its association with patient numeracy level. JMIR Diabetes. 2017; 2 (2): 24.

14. Kato N., Cui J., Kato M. Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose reduces glycated hemoglobin in insulin-treated diabetes. J Diabetes Investig. 2013; 4 (5): 450-3.

15. Haak T., Hanaire H., Ajjan R. et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8 (1): 55-73.

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28000140

DOI: 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6

16. Reiterer F., Polterauer P, Schoemaker M., et al. Significance and reliability of MARD for the accuracy of CGM systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017; 11 (1): 59-67.

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27566735

DOI: 10.1177/1932296816662047

17. Parkin C.G., Graham C., Smolskis J. Сontinuous glucose monitoring use in type 1 diabetes: longitudinal analysis demonstrates meaningful improvements in HbA1c and reductions in health care utilization. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017; 11 (3): 522-8.

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28745091

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296817693253

18. Pickup J.C., Freeman S.Z., Sutton A.J. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ. 2011; 343: d3805.

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21737469

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d3805

19. Evans J.M., Mackison D., Swanson V., Donnan P.T., et al. Selfmonitoring among non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: patients’ behavioural responses to readings and associations with glycaemic control. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013: 100 (2): 235-42.

20. Shengsheng Y., Biju V., Zhiyi L., et al. Healthcare resource waste associated with patient nonadherence and early discontinuation of traditional continuous glucose monitoring in real-world setting: a multicountry analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018; 20: 420-7.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)