Efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose versus retrospective continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycaemic control in diabetic kidney disease patients

Nephrology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ester Yeoh ◽  
Boon Khim Lim ◽  
Sharon Fun ◽  
Julia Tong ◽  
Lee Ying Yeoh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Diabetic Kidney Disease ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Diabetic Kidney ◽  
Retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring

scholarly journals Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Versus Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Children: A Randomised Controlled Trial (RoSEC)

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-68
Author(s):  
Muhd Alwi Muhd Helmi ◽  
Norsa'adah Bachok ◽  
Suhaimi Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Monitoring System ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The primary and secondary objectives were to compare the glycaemic control and frequency of hypoglycaemia between continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: A single centre, randomised, parallel-group controlled trial was conducted involving twenty-two type one Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) patients with the mean age of 13.8 years assigned to either intervention or control group. All respondents wore the CGMS device at the beginning of the study. Intervention group (n=11) had their insulin adjusted based on the CGMS data, while the control group (n=11) was based on SMBG. Monthly average blood sugar level (BSL) and monthly mean hypoglycemic events per week (HE/wk) were measured at baseline, first month, second month, and third month. HbA1c levels were measured at baseline and in the third month. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar. The data were analysed using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA). The mean difference of HbA1c within the group was not statistically significant with p=0.322. There were significant differences in the monthly mean HE/wk within and between groups, p=0.004, and p=0.037. Conclusion: In conclusion, CGMS is equivalent to SMBG in optimising glycaemic control but is more effective in detecting hypoglycaemia in children.  

scholarly journals Real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a randomised controlled single-centre trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040648
Author(s):  
Nanna Lind ◽  
Dorte Lindqvist Hansen ◽  
Signe Sætre Rasmussen ◽  
Kirsten Nørgaard
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Peer Support ◽  
Continuous Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Self Monitoring

IntroductionMedical treatment options for type 2 diabetes (T2D) have increased over the last decade and enhance the possibility of individualised treatment strategies where insulin is still one of them. In spite of the advancements in treatment options, less than one-third of the population with T2D obtain their optimal glycaemic goal. In persons with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has shown to be the most important driver for improvement in glycaemic control, even more than insulin-pump therapy. The use of technology in T2D has only been investigated in few studies.The overall objective of the research study is to examine the effectiveness of the use of CGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with insulin-treated T2D on glycaemic variables and patient-reported outcomes on treatment satisfaction, health behaviour and well-being. The independent effect of peer support will also be studied.Methods and analysisThe study is a single centre, prospective, randomised, open-labelled, three-armed study with the randomisation 2:1:2 in group A with CGM, group B with CGM and peer support, and group C as a control group with SMBG. The participants receive a training course unique for the allocation group. The study runs for 12 months and includes 100 adult participants with insulin-treated T2D, treated at the outpatient clinic at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen. Primary outcome is difference in change in time in range. Recruitment begins in August 2020 and ends in July 2021. Final 12-month follow-up is anticipated to be in August 2022.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Capital Region (H-20000843). Data collection and handling will be performed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (J-2020-100). Dissemination will be in international peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04331444).Protocol versionV.3, 11 December 2020.

scholarly journals Glycaemic Monitoring in Diabetic Kidney Disease – Is HbA1c Reliable?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salbiah Binti Isa ◽  
Rohayu Hami ◽  
Alma’ Norliana JA ◽  
Siti Salmah Noordin ◽  
Tuan Salwani Tuan Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Diabetic Kidney Disease ◽  
Glycated Albumin ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Diabetic Control ◽  
Haemoglobin A1c ◽  
Diabetic Kidney ◽  
Serum Fructosamine ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
End Stage

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a known complication of diabetes mellitus that increases patients’ risks of developing end-stage renal failure requiring dialysis treatment and vulnerability of fatal outcomes resulted from cardiovascular events. Therefore, a good diabetic control among patients with DKD is essential. Nevertheless, monitoring glycaemia in DKD is very challenging. The use of the gold standard glycaemic marker, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), is complicated by many hindrances associated with both biochemical and physiological derangements of DKD. Despite the constraints, the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome has recommended the use of HbA1c as a reliable glycaemic marker in DKD patients, whose estimated glomerular filtration rate is down to 30 millilitres/minute per 1.73 meter2 . In this article, we discuss the reliability and limitations of HbA1c as an advocated glycaemic marker in DKD. Considering that the reliability of HbA1c is highly dependent on the interpretation of the results, we also highlighted the common potential factors that can affect HbA1c interpretation in patients with DKD. The article also discusses the issues related to the utility of glycated albumin and serum fructosamine as alternative glycaemic biomarkers, and continuous glucose monitoring as a complementary marker to HbA1c in clinical practice. Understanding the HbA1c values and their limitations is important to ensure accurate interpretation of glycaemic status and to achieve optimal diabetic control in patients with DKD.

scholarly journals Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition: towards an indication to treat diabetic kidney disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i13-i23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Luis Górriz ◽  
Juan F Navarro-González ◽  
Alberto Ortiz ◽  
Ander Vergara ◽  
Julio Nuñez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Diabetic Kidney Disease ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Blood Glucose Control ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Diabetic Kidney ◽  
Renin Angiotensin ◽  
Sodium Glucose Cotransporter

Abstract Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have clearly demonstrated their beneficial effect in diabetic kidney disease (DKD) on top of the standard of care [blood glucose control, renin–angiotensin system blockade, smoking cessation and blood pressure (BP) control], even in patients with overt DKD. However, the indication of this drug class is still blood glucose lowering in type 2 diabetic patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate >45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Based on the new evidence, several scientific societies have emphasized the preferential prescription of SGLT2i for patients at risk of heart failure or kidney disease, but still within the limits set by health authorities. A rapid positioning of both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration will allow patients with overt DKD to benefit from SGLT2i. Clinical experience suggests that SGLT2i safety management may in part mirror renin–angiotensin blockade safety management in patients with overt DKD. This review focuses on the rationale for an indication of SGTL2i in DKD. We further propose clinical steps for maximizing the safety of SGLT2i in DKD patients on other antidiabetic, BP or diuretic medication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document