Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Dec;40(12):1631-1640.
doi: 10.2337/dc17-1600.

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Affiliations
Review

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Thomas Danne et al. Diabetes Care. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The electronic AGP report visualizes the key CGM metrics: 1) mean glucose, 2) hypoglycemia: clinically significant/very low/immediate action required, 3) hypoglycemia: alert/low/monitor, 4) target range, 5) hyperglycemia: alert/elevated/monitor, 6) hyperglycemia: clinically significant/very elevated/immediate action required, 7) glycemic variability, 8) eA1C, 9) time blocks, 10) collection period, 11) percentage of expected readings, 12) hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia episodes, 13) area under the curve, 14) hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia risk, and 15) standardized rtCGM/iCGM visualization. AUC, area under the curve; Avg; average; IQR, interquartile range; MAGE, mean amplitude of glucose excursions; MODD, mean of daily differences.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kato N, Cui J, Kato M. Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose reduces glycated hemoglobin in insulin-treated diabetes. J Diabetes Investig 2013;4:450–453 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, et al. . Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:262–26 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Franciosi M, Lucisano G, Pellegrini F, et al. .; ROSES Study Group . ROSES: role of self-monitoring of blood glucose and intensive education in patients with type 2 diabetes not receiving insulin. A pilot randomized clinical trial. Diabet Med 2011;28:789–796 - PubMed
    1. Kempf K, Kruse J, Martin S. ROSSO-in-praxi follow-up: long-term effects of self-monitoring of blood glucose on weight, hemoglobin A1c, and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 2012;14:59–64 - PubMed
    1. Bolli GB. Hypoglycaemia unawareness. Diabetes Metab 1997;23(Suppl. 3):29–35 - PubMed

MeSH terms