Elsevier

Endocrine Practice

Volume 12, Supplement 1, January–February 2006, Pages 110-117
Endocrine Practice

ACE/AACE Diabetes Recommendations Implementation Conference
Role of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Glycemic Control

https://doi.org/10.4158/EP.12.S1.110Get rights and content

ABSTRACT

Objective

To examine the role of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the management of diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Current trends and published evidence are reviewed.

Results

Despite the widespread evidence that lowering glycemic levels reduces the risks of complications in patients with diabetes, little improvement in glycemic control has been noted among patients in the United States and Europe in recent years. Although SMBG has been widely used, considerable controversy surrounds its role in achieving glycemic control. The high cost of test strips has made considerations regarding appropriate recommendations for SMBG a priority, especially in light of the current climate of health-care cost-containment. Existing clinical recommendations lack specific guidance to patients and clinicians regarding SMBG practice intensity and frequency, particularly for those patients not treated with insulin. Previous studies of the association between SMBG and glycemic control often found weak and conflicting results.

Conclusion

A reexamination of the role of SMBG is needed, with special attention to the unique needs of patients using different diabetes treatments, within special clinical subpopulations, and during initiation of SMBG versus its ongoing use. Further understanding of the intensity and frequency of SMBG needed to reflect the variability in glycemic patterns would facilitate more specific guideline development. Educational programs that focus on teaching patients the recommended SMBG practice, specific glycemic targets, and appropriate responses to various blood glucose readings would be beneficial. Continuing medical education programs for health-care providers should suggest ways to analyze patient SMBG records to tailor medication regimens. For transfer or communication of SMBG reports to the clinical staff, a standardized format that extracts key data elements and allows quick review by health-care providers would be useful. Because the practice of SMBG is expensive, the cost-effectiveness of SMBG needs to be carefully assessed. (Endocr Pract. 2006;12[Suppl 1]:110-117)

Section snippets

INTRODUCTION

Several landmark studies have demonstrated that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of complications in type 1 diabetes—the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (1) and the Stockholm Diabetes Intervention Study (2)—as well as type 2 diabetes—the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (3) and the Kumamoto Study (4). Despite this strong evidence supporting the importance of “tight” glycemic control, minimal improvement in overall glycemic control has been noted in patients

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

SMBG may lead to improved glycemic control through numerous pathways (Fig. 1). SMBG provides immediate feedback to patients regarding their levels of glycemia. This feedback can help patients achieve better glycemic control if the information is used to adjust the timing, type, or dose of therapy. Careful monitoring may reduce the risk of undetected, asymptomatic hypoglycemia and thereby enable a patient to intensify insulin therapy safely to achieve near-normoglycemia. Of note, in all the

SMBG SMBG UTILIZATION PATTERNS

In a survey-based study of SMBG utilization patterns in patients from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry, we (16) assessed adherence to the American Diabetes Association guidelines for SMBG practice (17). Although most patients reported some level of SMBG, 60% of those with type 1 diabetes and 67% of those with type 2 diabetes reported practicing SMBG less often than recommended (3 to 4 times daily for type 1 diabetes and daily for type 2 diabetes treated

BARRIERS TO SMBG

Because test strips are expensive, patients who lack insurance coverage for such strips usually bear the complete financial burden of purchasing the strips themselves. With appropriate utilization for a patient with type 1 diabetes, the annual, out-of-pocket costs for test strips alone can approach $1,000. This cost represents a financial barrier to utilization of SMBG, particularly for poorer patients lacking health insurance benefits that cover testing supplies. We (16) have previously

EMERGING EVIDENCE OF SMBG EFFECTIVENESS

Although SMBG is widely recommended as a component of diabetes management, substantial controversy exists about this costly practice, especially for patients not treated with insulin. It has been argued that existing evidence, particularly that pertaining to the ability of SMBG to improve glycemic control, is weak and does not support specific recommendations or reimbursement for test strips (for example, by private and governmental health plans) (23,24). Although most of the supporting

HEALTH-CARE COST CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICY CHANGES

Cost concerns are the primary reason that SMBG is controversial. The annual direct cost for SMBG test strips alone in the United States is currently estimated to exceed $3 billion. Test strips are the 4th largest pharmacy expenditure and represent 2% of the total pharmacy budget at Kaiser Permanente; they represent a substantial portion of the total pharmacy budget at the Veterans Affairs Hospitals as well (John Piette, personal communication). In 2002, the UK National Health Service, in a

PATIENT HEALTH EDUCATION

The weak past evidence for SMBG effectiveness is likely attributable, in part, to the lack of consistent actions, if any, taken by patients or health-care providers in response to SMBG readings. Thus, a reexamination of the current training available for patients and providers is needed. One recent study showed that among patients treated with orally administered agents or insulin, only 30% and 58%, respectively, were able to identify their low glycemic targets for home blood glucose monitoring

CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION FOR HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS

In light of the multitude of pharmaceutical options available, tailoring medication regimens as a function of glycemic patterns derived from SMBG data is a complex task. Decision trees could be based on algorithms that incorporate key SMBG summary statistics (for example, fasting, bedtime, and 2-hour postmeal SMBG readings) to make decisions about medication regimens. Continuing medical education that provides advanced training on how to utilize SMBG data optimally for fine-tuning of medication

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM FACTORS

Noninvasive (continuous) glucose monitoring may ultimately replace SMBG as it currently exists, providing a painless method of monitoring blood glucose automatically and frequently (54). This technologic advance, with provision of detailed information on glucose patterns and trends, could facilitate even better glycemic control and constitute an early warning system for hypoglycemic events. Patients are more likely to use a technology that causes no pain. Such new technologies, however, are

CONCLUSION

Because of the historically lackluster evidence of SMBG effectiveness and expense of test strips, managed care and governmental decision makers are struggling with decisions about whether, and to what extent, to support SMBG. Emerging evidence indicates that SMBG should have an important role in glycemic control efforts for both the patient and the health-care provider, but SMBG is only one facet in the complex intervention of diabetes care. Interventions aimed at a single facet of a complex

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • 1.

    Clinical Guidelines: Develop separate clinical recommendations for new SMBG users and ongoing SMBG users, and further stratify patients by type of diabetes therapy. Ideally, newly initiated SMBG practice would be integrated into a health education program for patients soon after the diagnosis of diabetes. Guidelines for the development of specific SMBG recommendations will need to merge expert opinion with a careful review of the scientific evidence through a consensus process. Such an effort

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) Grant R01 DK61678-02.

REFERENCES (56)

  • C.E. Koro et al.

    Glycemic control from 1988 to 2000 among U.S. adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: a preliminary report

    Diabetes Care.

    (2004)
  • L.J. Ubink-Veltmaat et al.

    Prevalence, incidence and mortality of type 2 diabetes mellitus revisited: a prospective population-based study in The Netherlands (ZODIAC-1)

    Eur J Epidemiol.

    (2003)
  • W. Gatling et al.

    Evidence of an increasing prevalence of diagnosed diabetes mellitus in the Poole area from 1983 to 1996

    Diabet Med.

    (1998)
  • B. Berger et al.

    Incidence, prevalence, and mortality of diabetes in a large population: a report from the Skaraborg Diabetes Registry

    Diabetes Care.

    (1999)
  • American Diabetes Association

    Clinical practice recommendations 1998

    Diabetes Care.

    (1998)
  • American Diabetes Association

    Self-monitoring of blood glucose

    Diabetes Care.

    (1994)
  • A. Ceriello

    Postprandial hyperglycemia and diabetes complications: is it time to treat?

    Diabetes.

    (2005)
  • D.J. Cox et al.

    Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent diabetes melli-tus can be predicted from self-monitoring blood glucose data

    J Clin Endocrinol Metab.

    (1994)
  • J.L. Gilden et al.

    Effects of self-monitoring of blood glucose on quality of life in elderly diabetic patients

    J Am Geriatr Soc.

    (1990)
  • S.B. Soumerai et al.

    Effects of health maintenance organization coverage of self-monitoring devices on diabetes self-care and glycemic control

    Arch Intern Med.

    (2004)
  • A.J. Karter et al.

    Self-monitoring of blood glucose: language and financial barriers in a managed care population with diabetes

    Diabetes Care.

    (2000)
  • American Diabetes Association

    Clinical practice recommendations 2000

    Diabetes Care.

    (2000)
  • A.J. Karter et al.

    (Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes Study Group). Out-of-pocket costs and diabetes preventive services: the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study

    Diabetes Care.

    (2003)
  • B.L. Nyomba et al.

    The cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose is an important factor limiting glycemic control in diabetic patients [letter]

    Diabetes Care.

    (2002)
  • S.L. Bowker et al.

    Lack of insurance coverage for testing supplies is associated with poorer glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

    CMAJ.

    (2004)
  • D. Schillinger et al.

    Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy

    Arch Intern Med.

    (2003)
  • A.S. Adams et al.

    Barriers to self-monitoring of blood glucose among adults with diabetes in an HMO: a cross sectional study

    BMC Health Serv Res.

    (2003)
  • A.W. Patrick et al.

    Home glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: is it a waste of time?

    Diabet Med.

    (1994)
  • Cited by (23)

    • Blood glucose test strips: Options to reduce usage

      2010, CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text