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
. 2020 Oct;38(4):348-356.
doi: 10.2337/cd19-0093.

The Changing Landscape of Glycemic Targets: Focus on Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Affiliations

The Changing Landscape of Glycemic Targets: Focus on Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Pamela R Kushner et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides comprehensive assessment of daily glucose measurements for patients with diabetes and can reveal high and low blood glucose values that may occur even when a patient's A1C is adequately controlled. Among the measures captured by CGM, the percentage of time in the target glycemic range, or "time in range" (typically 70-180 mg/dL), has emerged as one of the strongest indicators of good glycemic control. This review examines the shift to using CGM to assess glycemic control and guide diabetes treatment decisions, with a focus on time in range as the key metric of glycemic control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
A depiction showing how patients with the same A1C value may experience different amounts of TIR.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Electronic CGM reports allow for visualization of AGP and key glucose metrics. Reproduced with permission from Kruger et al. Diabetes Educ 2019;45(Suppl. 1):3S–20S (ref. 12).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
TIR defined. Reference ranges help clinicians guide therapy recommendations.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Mean proportions of time spent in glycemic ranges after treatment with exenatide once weekly or placebo, each added to metformin. *P <0.001, treatment difference (exenatide once weekly − placebo) in least-squares mean changes. MET, metformin. Reproduced with permission from Frías et al. (53).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Beck RW, Connor CG, Mullen DM, Wesley DM, Bergenstal RM. The fallacy of average: how using HbA1c alone to assess glycemic control can be misleading. Diabetes Care 2017;40:994–999 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, et al. . Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995;28:103–117 - PubMed
    1. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group; Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, et al. . The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–986 - PubMed
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–853 - PubMed
    1. Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J, et al. . Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018: a consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 2018;61:2461–2498 - PubMed