Skip to main content

Should continuous glucose monitoring systems be offered to all patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus?

Abstract

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic autoimmune condition characterised by autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic beta cell. It is associated with macrovascular and microvascular complications. Tight glycaemic control has been shown to ameliorate the long-term complications of T1DM, but this benefit has to be balanced with the risk and fear of hypoglycaemia. Monitoring glucose levels frequently helps patients to achieve more intensive glycaemic control. Finger prick blood glucose monitoring has traditionally been the most commonly used method to monitor glucose levels. More recently, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, which measure interstitial glucose, have become available. CGM systems remove or significantly reduce the need for blood glucose testing and have been shown in real world and clinical trial settings to improve glycaemic control, reduce frequency of hypoglycaemia, improve recognition of hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life. The question now is whether CGM should replace capillary blood glucose measurements and be offered to all patients with T1DM.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Galindo et al (2020) Continuous Glucose Monitoring: the achievement of 100 years of innovation in diabetes technology. Diabetes Res Clin Prac

  2. 2.

    The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993) 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 329:977–986

  3. 3.

    Miller et al (2013) Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and haemoglobin A1c levels in T1D exchange clinic registry participants. Diabetes Care 36(7):2009–2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    NHS Digital; National Diabetes Audit Diabetes Prevention Programme- Quarterly Report: 1 January to 31 December 2020

  5. 5.

    Miller et al (2015) Current State of Type 1 Diabetes Treatment in the U.S.: Updated Data from the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care 38:971–978

  6. 6.

    Foster NC et al (2019) State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 21(2):66–72

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cotter et al (2014) Glycaemic control is harder to achieve than blood pressure or lipid control in Irish adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Prac 

  8. 8.

    Dubowitz et al (2014) Aging is associated with increased HbA1c levels, independently of glucose levels and insulin resistance, and also with decreased HbA1c diagnostic specificity. Diabet Med 31(8):927–935

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Nielsen et al (2004) HbA1c levels are significantly lower in early and late pregnancy. Diabetes Care 27(5):1200–1201

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Beck et al (2010) Prolonged nocturnal hypoglycaemia is common during 12 months of continuous glucose monitoring in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 33(5):1004–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Beck et al (2019) The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(4):614–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Beck et al (2017) Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections, The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317(4):371–378

  13. 13.

    Huang et al (2010) The cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 33(6):1269–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lind et al (2017) Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections, The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 317(4):379–387

  15. 15.

    Bolinder et al (2016) Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388(10057):P2254-2263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Deshmukh et al (2020) Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related distress, and resource utilization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) nationwide audit. Diabetes Care 43:2153–2160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cussen et al (2020) Multi-centre real world data on FreeStyle Libre in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Endocrinology Society 44th Annual Meeting; 1620, P10

  18. 18.

    Bosi et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of suspend-before-low insulin pump technology in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes (SMILE): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet

  19. 19.

    Bergenstal et al (2021) A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet 397(10270):208–219

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael John Lockhart.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lockhart, M.J., Smith, D. Should continuous glucose monitoring systems be offered to all patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus?. Ir J Med Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02630-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Continuous glucose monitoring
  • Flash glucose monitoring
  • Glycaemic control
  • Hypoglycaemia
  • Type 1 diabetes