Evolution of continuous glucose monitoring in existing clinical guidelines for patient with diabetes mellitus
AbstractAssuming the dramatic growth in the number of patients with diabetes mellitus, their adherence to enough glycemic control is crucial. The number of patients utilizing new technologies to control their disease, including continuous glucose monitoring, is now increasing. Flash glucose monitoring – a unique new ability to navigate glucose in patients with diabetes mellitus.
This approach to self-management is resulted in obtaining glucose level fluctuations during the day, but also warning of potential hypo- or hyperglycemia development, leading to an acute diabetes complications reduction. Such visibility contributes both to the greater patients’ compliance with physician recommendations, and to the improvement of their quality of life due to the opportunity to manage their diabetes. Dealing with these technologies (continuous glucose monitoring) from the physician side, in turn, allows the latter to implement a personalized approach to patient’s treatment. This review presents the positioning of continues glucose monitoring in International and Russian clinical guidelines in diabetes management and describes standardized values for the most essential metrics – target range, tome in range, time in hypoglycemia and time in hyperglycemia. Data supported the correlation between time in range and level of glycated hemoglobin and microvascular complication’s risks in diabetes is presented in the article.
Keywords: diabetes mellitus, continuous glucose monitoring, clinical guidelines, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, decreasing in number of acute diabetes complications
Funding. The study had no sponsor support.
Conflict of interests. The author declare no conflict of interests.
For citation: Chernikova N.A. Evolution of continuous glucose monitoring in existing clinical guidelines for patient with diabetes mellitus. Endokrinologiya: novosti, mneniya, obuchenie [Endocrinology: News, Opinions, Training]. 2020; 9 (4): 59–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2304-9529-2020-9-4-59-65 (in Russian)
REFERENCES
1. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 9th ed. [Electronic resource]. 2019. URL: https://www.diabetesatlas.org/en/ (date of access October 14, 2020)
2. Agiostratidou G., Anhalt H., Ball D., et al. Standardizing clinically meaningful outcome measures beyond HbA1c for type 1 diabetes: a consensus report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endo. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40 (12): 1622–30.
3. Standards of medical care in diabetes — 2020. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43 (1): S 1–2.
4. Carlson A.L., Mullen D.M., Bergenstal R.M. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017; 19 (S 2): S 4–11.
5. Danne T., Nimri R., Battelino T., et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40 (12): 1631–40.
6. Bergenstal R.M., Ahmann A.J., Bailey T., et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP). Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013; 15 (3): 198–211.
7. Dunn T.C., Crouther N. Assessment of the variance of the ambulatory glucose profile over 3 to 20 days of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetologia. 2010; 53 (suppl 1): 421.
8. International Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American diabetes association and the European association for the study of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40 (1): 155–7.
9. Battelino T., Danne T., Bergenstal R.M., et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42 (8): 1593–603.
10. Vigersky R.A., McMahon C. The Relationship of hemoglobin A1C to timein-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21 (2): 81–5.
11. Beck R.W., Bergenstal R.M., Riddlesworth T.D., et al. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42 (3): 400–5.
12. Type 1 diabetes in adults. Clinical recommendations. 2019. (in Russian)
13. Type 2 diabetes in adults. Clinical recommendations. 2019. (in Russian)