SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.47 issue2A 20-year femoral arteriovenous fistulaCurrent recommendations for analyzing and reporting gastric biopsies author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Acta Medica Colombiana

Print version ISSN 0120-2448

Acta Med Colomb vol.47 no.2 Bogotá Apr./June 2022  Epub Jan 07, 2023

https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239 

Forums and Consensus

Consensus for the use of flash glucose monitoring in the Colombian adult population with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus

ANA MARÍA GÓMEZ-MEDINAa 

CARLOS AUGUSTO YEPES-CORTÉSb 

ANDRÉS DUARTE-OSORIOc 

DIANA HENAO-CARRILLOd  * 

PABLO JARAMILLO-PARRAe 

INGRID STEPHENS-LEALf 

OLGA MILENA PAOLA GARCÍA-MORALESg 

CLAUDIA RUBIO-REYESh 

VANESSA SALEJ-DURÁNi 

GABRIELA MONROY-RIVERAj 

ISABELLA ZULUAGA-MONTOYAj 

JOSÉ FERNANDO BOTERO-ARANGOk 

KAREN FERIZ BONELOl 

a Internista, Endocrinólogo. Jefe Unidad de Endocrinología Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Profesora Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

b Internista, Endocrinólogo. Epidemiólogo Clínico Hospital Universitario San Ignacio y Hospital Universitario Clínica San Rafael; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

c Médico Familiar. Epidemiólogo Clínico. Profesor Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

d Internista, Endocrinólogo. Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Profesor Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

e Internista. Fellow de Endocrinología Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

f Internista, Endocrinólogo Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

g Internista, Neumóloga. Epidemiología Clínica Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

h Jefe de Enfermería. Educadora en Diabetes Hospital Universitario San Ignacio; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

i Vanessa Salej-Durán: Paciente; Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

j Estudiante de Medicina. Facultad de Medicina Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia).

k Internista, Endocrinólogo. Clínica Integral de Diabetes (CLID). Medellín (Colombia);

l Internista, Endocrinólogo Fundación Valle del Lili. Cali. (Colombia).


Abstract

Introduction:

in Colombia, the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of patients with type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2) diabetes do not mention the use of flash glucose monitoring, as this system was not available. The objective of this study was to establish a set of recommendations for the use of intermittent flash monitoring in Colombia.

Methods:

the group of experts consisted of eight Colombian physicians from different cities within Colombia, with expertise in the management of patients with DM1 and DM2; a certified diabetes nurse educator; a patient with DM1; and a methodological expert. Using the Zoom Enterprise video conferencing application (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California), the group generated questions through the Metaplan method, then carried out a systematic literature search and evidence review. The recommendations were made according to the degree of evidence and strength of the recommendation, following the GRADE method.

Results:

clinical recommendations were made for: a) patients with DM1 and hypoglycemia; b) patients with DM1 and poor metabolic control; c) patients with insulin-treated DM2; d) pregestational diabetes; e) quality of life; and f) inpatient use.

Conclusions:

this consensus's clinical recommendations guide clinical decision making with regard to the use of intermittent flash monitoring in patients with diabetes in various clinical settings. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).

Keywords: type 1 diabetes mellitus; type 2 diabetes mellitus; continuous glucose monitoring; capillary self-monitoring; hypoglycemia

Resumen

Introducción:

en Colombia las Guías de Práctica Clínica para el manejo del paciente con diabetes tipo 1 (DM1) y tipo 2 (DM2) no mencionan el uso del monitoreo de glucosa flash dado que dicho sistema no estaba disponible. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue establecer un grupo de recomendaciones sobre el uso del monitoreo intermitente flash en Colombia.

Métodos:

el grupo de expertos estuvo conformado por ocho médicos colombianos expertos en el manejo de pacientes con DM1 y DM2 de diversas ciudades de Colombia, una enfermera licenciada educadora en diabetes, una paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y un experto metodológico. A través de Zoom Enterprise versión de la aplicación de videoconferencia Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California) el grupo generó las preguntas con metodología Metaplan. Posteriormente, se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura y análisis de la evidencia. Las recomendaciones se generaron mediante grupo nominal según el grado de evidencia y la formaleza de la recomendación siguiendo la metodología GRADE.

Resultados:

se generaron recomendaciones clínicas enfocadas a: a) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 e hipoglucemia; b) paciente con diagnóstico de DM1 y mal control metabólico, c) paciente con diagnóstico de DM tipo 2 tratado con insulina, d) diabetes pregestacional, e) calidad de vida y f) uso intrahospitalario.

Conclusiones:

las recomendaciones clínicas del presente consenso orientan la toma de decisiones clínicas con respecto al uso de monitoreo intermitente flash en el paciente con diagnóstico de diabetes en diferentes escenarios clínicos. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2239).

Palabras clave: diabetes mellitus tipo 1; diabetes mellitus tipo 2; monitoreo continuo de glucosa; automonitoreo capilar; hipoglucemia

Introduction

The everyday assessment and recording of glucose levels is essential in achieving good metabolic control in patients with T1DM and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use insulin 1. This glucose self-monitoring has been available in clinical practice for approximately three decades using capillary measurement with glucometers.

Recently, alternative or complementary methods have emerged based on the use of a subcutaneous glucose sensor which can produce more measurements per day 2. This large amount of information can create a tracing reflecting the behavior of glucose 24 hours a day, which is why this technology has been termed "continuous glucose monitoring" (CGM) 3.

There are various devices which use real-time CGM (rt-CGM) or retrospective CGM. Patients can use real-time CGM to recognize dangerous glucose levels and take immediate corrective action, which is not possible with retrospective CGM. The clinical situations in which retrospective CGM methods are recommended are usually different from those in which realtime monitoring is recommended 2. In Colombia, rtCGM is only available as part of an integrated treatment system which includes continuous insulin infusion. This is a very expensive system and is restricted to a limited type of patients.

Other parts of the world have rtCGM which is not integrated with insulin pumps 4 and can be used in a certain group of patients who do not need the integrated pump but who are insufficiently controlled with capillary self-monitoring. This sui generis technology availability situation in Colombia results in only the most elementary and inexpensive or most sophisticated and expensive technology being available, with no intermediate element, limiting the adoption of diabetes technology recommendations produced in other countries with more therapeutic alternatives.

Recently in many countries around the world, including Colombia, an intermittent glucose monitoring system has become available, an alternative to those already mentioned, known as flash glucose monitoring 5. This technology can be considered more complete as well as more costly than capillary glucose self-monitoring (glucometer readings), but cheaper and, to a certain extent, more clinically limited than rtCGM alone or integrated with an insulin pump 3,6.

Flash glucose monitoring is a system consisting of a glucose sensor inserted in the skin over the triceps muscle, and a reader for scanning. This system constructs a glucose tracing over time from individual readings made every 15 minutes. The sensor is factory-calibrated and can be used for up to 14 days. Its use has spread significantly over the last two years, replacing capillary glucose recording, as it provides more frequent readings without the need for finger pricks. This device reports the glucose trend through arrows showing the direction of the change, and provides retrospective information on the behavior of glucose over several days, which allows the effect of medications, exercise or other variables to be evaluated, aiding interpretation and treatment adjustments 5.

In Colombia, the Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing patients with T1DM 7 and T2DM 8 do not mention the use of flash glucose monitoring as this system was not available when the guidelines were drafted. With the introduction and availability of this monitoring option in the Colombian market and the possibility of its inappropriate use, evidence-based consensus recommendations were generated by Colombian clinical experts.

Methods

Part of the group who developed the clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing, treating and following patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus over the age of 15 in Colombia, based at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, acted as the coordinating group for producing the recommendations for the use of flash glucose monitoring, through a panel of experts armed with the best available evidence 9-11. A coordinating group was responsible for selecting the experts; conducting the search for, evaluation and synthesis of the evidence; and preparing the evidence to decision (EtD) framework. The coordinating group was also responsible for creating the questionnaires; ensuring the flow of information between experts during the iterative process of consults and their respective feedback; analyzing the responses in each round and preparing the subsequent questionnaires; and constructing the consensus document.

The group of experts was made up of eight Colombian physicians from various Colombian cities who were experts in the management of patients with T1DM and T2DM, a nurse who was a certified diabetes educator, a patient diagnosed with T1DM and a methods expert 11. Experts were defined as Colombian endocrinologists with at least five years of clinical experience with T1DM or T2DM in adult patients and with indexed publications related to these conditions. The participants reported their conflicts of interest in writing, using a form.

To identify the questions, an initial meeting was held in which the questions produced by the coordinating group were communicated to and rephrased by the group of experts using the Metaplan method, and subsequently definitively established by consensus.

Once the questions were produced, a systematic search of the literature was performed in PubMed using the MESH terms for each question and subsequently applying effectiveness, values and preferences, and economic evidence filters, with priority given to systematic reviews or metaanalyses and high-quality primary studies. Using the EtD data presentation form 12,13, the body of evidence for each outcome of interest was summarized. Evidence on patient preferences and values regarding the outcomes defined in the PICO strategy was integrated into this same EtD form 14. Once the EtD forms were completed, a general meeting on the Zoom videoconference application (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, California) was held to produce the recommendations using the nominal group method of personal interaction between the experts. Finally, ongoing email contact was maintained until the definitive written guidelines were approved 15.

The recommendations are presented according to the degree of evidence and strength of the recommendation, following the GRADE tool. Consensus was defined as a minimum agreement of 80% of the experts with the suggested recommendation (eight of ten). Each consensus member drafted a declaration of conflicts of interest, and these are available as an annex. The sponsor did not influence the design or development of this consensus, and it was paid for through an unconditional grant from Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá.

Question 1

Does flash glucose monitoring in patients over the age of 18 with type 1 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of hypoglycemia (defined as the absence of severe hypoglycemia or having a normal awareness of hypoglycemic symptoms) reduce hypoglycemia compared with self-monitoring with capillary glucose measurement with or without a structured educational program?

Summary of the evidence

A randomized, controlled, non-blinded study (IMPACT) was found which included 328 adult patients with T1DM with an HbA1c on admission equal to or less than 7.5%. The mean daily hypoglycemic time was evaluated, which went from 3.38 hours to 2.03 hours at six months (with a mean change of -1.39 hours) in the intervention group and from 3.44 hours to 3.27 hours in the control group (-0.14 hours). The difference in means between the groups was -1.24 (SD 0.239; p<0.0001), equal to a 38% reduction in hypoglycemic time in the intervention group. Thirteen adverse events related to the device were reported, although none were serious 16.

Several articles were found evaluating the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring 17-20. However, as these studies did not have a comparator (they were single-arm studies), the methodological score was low.

Expert panel discussion

The evidence for the intervention of interest is limited to one controlled, randomized and multicentric study; three prospective studies but with a single arm; one retrospective study; and, regarding the effect of a structured education program, one open, randomized and controlled study. The IMPACT clinical study was not blind, but the panel recognizes the difficulty in blinding this type of intervention. The direction of the effect coincides in both the clinical study as well as the observational studies, which suggests that flash glucose monitoring reduces the risk of hypoglycemia in this population. In addition, the evidence suggests that flash glucose monitoring increases treatment satisfaction and has a similar safety profile to capillary glucose measurement. The group considers that a structured education program and periodic assessment of adherence should be emphasized as good clinical practice. The quality of the evidence was low to moderate.

Recommendation

Flash glucose monitoring is recommended over self-monitoring with capillary glucose measurement in patients with T1DM and a risk of hypoglycemia, but without unperceived or severe hypoglycemia, ideally together with a structured educational program.

RECOMMENDATION. LOW-MODERATE CERTAINTY OF THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

Question 2

Does flash glucose monitoring in patients over the age of 18 with type 1 diabetes mellitus and a high risk of hypoglycemia (defined as asymptomatic hypoglycemia and/or a history of severe hypoglycemia) reduce hypoglycemia when compared with capillary glucose self-monitoring together with a structured education program, or with real-time continuous glucose monitoring, or with insulin pump therapy integrated with a real-time continuous monitoring system?

Summary of the evidence

A controlled, randomized pilot study and its extension study were found. This clinical trial included 40 patients with T1DM and a high risk of hypoglycemia. The subjects were randomized to rtCGM or flash glucose monitoring. The authors established the change in hypoglycemic time (<60 mg/dL) as the primary outcome and changes in the Gold score and the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS-II) as additional outcomes. The difference in the average hypoglycemic time was 4.3% in favor of rtCGM. When the study began, 90% (18/20) of the subjects in the rtCGM group and 85% (17/20) of those in the flash glucose monitoring group had a Gold score > 4; after eight weeks of treatment, this percentage lowered to 60% (12/20) in both groups. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia were reported during follow up in either group (21). In a different article, the authors extended the follow up for eight weeks, in which all patients were assigned to flash glucose monitoring. They found a significant reduction in the percentage of hypoglycemic time (<54 mg/dL) after changing to rtCGM (5.0 [3.7-8.6] vs. 0.8 [0.4-1.9], P <0.001). As a secondary outcome, there was also an improvement in time in range 22.

No evidence was found for the capillary glucose measurement plus structured education program comparator.

Expert panel discussion

The available evidence is from a study with a small sample size and without intervention blinding. The random assignment is unclear and there are inaccuracies in the data. This gives it a risk of serious bias and inaccuracy. In addition, it should be noted that the study did not report severe hypoglycemic episodes during the eight weeks of follow up in the intervention or the control group. The panel considers the finding of improved perception of hypoglycemic symptoms in most patients both in the rtCGM group as well as the flash monitoring group to be important. However, the reduction in hypoglycemic time was statistically greater in the rtCGM group, which suggests superiority of this treatment in this specific group of patients. The availability of alarms in rtCGM might explain the advantage of these devices in this type of patients with a diminished response to hypoglycemia. New versions of the flash glucose monitoring device, which are not available in Colombia, include alarms, but there are no publications yet in this type of population.

Recommendation

In patients with T1DM with a high risk of hypoglycemia (defined as the presence of asymptomatic hypoglycemia and/or a history of severe hypoglycemia), the use of rtCGM, integrated or not integrated with an insulin pump, is recommended over the use of flash glucose monitoring or capillary glucose measurements.

RECOMMENDATION. LOW CERTAINTY OF THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

Question 3

Does flash glucose monitoring in patients over the age of 18 with type 1 diabetes mellitus and an HbA1c greater than 7% improve glycemic control compared with capillary glucose self-monitoring?

Summary of the evidence

No direct evidence was found regarding the question of interest. Indirectly, the FLASH study was found which included the population, intervention and outcomes of interest, but not the comparator. This controlled, multicenter clinical trial compared the impact of a specific structured education program known as "FLASH" on flash glucose monitoring users compared with the usual care 23. All study participants used flash glucose monitoring and were randomized to the structured education program consisting of four 90-minute sessions over six weeks (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of the FLASH education program: purpose, content and objective23

Session Objective Content Objectives
First week. Information regarding the motivation for using flash glucose monitoring. General information regarding flash glucose monitoring. Understanding the trend arrows. Classification of the device characteristics. Personal motivation.
Second week Recognition of glucose patterns Analyzing glucose values and trends. Introduction to the six AGP modules Modules 1 & 2: Basic AGP concepts. Discussion about glucose data collection and the software for data analysis.
Fourth week Treatment adjustments based on recognized AGP patterns. Use of data to recognize glucose patterns and adjust treatment. Modules 3-6: Interpreting the AGP and treatment adjustments. Concept discussion and reinforcement, with personal examples.
Sixth week Review of treatment adjustments. Dealing with the barriers to reaching goals. Reinforcement of lessons learned. Preparation of a long-term management plan.

The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c after six months of follow up. The percentage of time in range and treatment satisfaction were assessed as secondary outcomes. After six months of follow up, HbA1c improved in both groups, both the group with the educational intervention (-0.28%, 95% CI -0.16, -0.40%) as well as the control group (-0.11%, 95% CI 0.00, -0.22%). However, HbA1c decreased more in the intervention group (-0.17%; 95% CI -0.01, -0.33%; p = 0.033). This difference persisted in the sensitivity analysis after adjusting for age, sex, and duration of the diabetes. As a secondary outcome, the time in range between 70 and 180 mg/dL was evaluated, which increased significantly by 3.8% (95% CI -7.0, -0.5, p=0.027) in the intervention group 23. In addition, the subjects who received structured education reported more frequent use of the trend arrows for daily insulin dose adjustments compared with the control group (69.6% vs. 54.6%, p = 0.003) and a more frequent assessment of the glucose levels after downloading the information in the computer (71.0% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.030) 23.

Expert panel discussion

After evaluating the impact on metabolic control of flash glucose monitoring in controlled clinical trials, the results are inconclusive 24. However, the data from the descriptive studies 25-33 report an improvement in HbA1c and TIR levels which, in the panel's opinion, could highlight the role of cointerventions such as patient education. The consensus panel considers that the integration of an educational program such as DAFNE (Table 2) would be desirable to improve the results of the monitoring device, in line with the Colombian clinical practice guidelines for T1DM patients over the age of 15 7.

Table 2 DAFNE-type education program (34). 

Characteristics Description
Main objective To help patients diagnosed with T1DM lead as normal a life as possible, maintaining stable blood glucose levels and reducing the risk of complications.
Target population Adults (>17 years) diagnosed with T1DM
Content • Carbohydrate count • Adjusting basal insulin • Rules for adjusting the prandial (or mealtime) insulin • Correcting hypo or hyperglycemia • How to manage glucose levels during exercise • Adjusting insulin during illness
Modality On-site or virtual.
Schedule for the on-site modality. Option A: five days from Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm Option B: one day a week for five weeks. Weekly follow up after the course by a muldisciplinary group.
Schedule for the virtual modality. The online course requires five weeks to complete and weekly video call support.
Staff who teach the course A nurse or nutritionist certified in diabetes education.
Benefits Improved glycemic control, decreased hypoglycemia, improved quality of life

There is a relationship between the number of measurements and TIR 31. However, there is no recommendation regarding the optimal number of daily scans; these have ranged from eight to 14 scans per day in the studies 23-33.

In conclusion, according to the available evidence, the panel recommends that the use of glucose monitoring devices in patients with T1DM and poor metabolic control always be accompanied by frequent scanning and data interpretation, along with the necessary education to help the patient adjust his/her treatment 23,35 and modify his/ her lifestyle 36.

Recommendation

  1. Compared with capillary glucose measurement, the expert panel suggests using flash glucose monitoring in individuals over the age of 18 with a T1DM diagnosis and poor metabolic control, ideally combined with a structured "FLASH"-type educational program, along with the DAFNE education. SUGGESTION. VERY LOW CERTAINTY OF THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

  2. The expert panel considers that flash glucose monitoring offers conditions which strengthen the role of education in T1DM (physical activity, trend interpretation, time in range, etc.), facilitating structured education.

RECOMMENDATION PRODUCED BY EXPERT CONSENSUS.

Question 4

Does flash glucose monitoring in insulin-dependent patients with type 2 diabetes mel-litus improve metabolic control (glycosylated hemoglobin, time in range) and/or improve the quality of life compared with capillary glucose monitoring?

Summary of the evidence

One controlled, randomized clinical trial was found involving 224 adults with T2DM on intensive insulin therapy, which compared the interventions specified in this question (REPLACE). The primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c at six months. Secondary outcomes were hypoglycemia and patient satisfaction. At the end of the study there were no differences in HbA1c between the groups. A subgroup analysis found a greater decrease in HbA1c in patients under the age of 65 who were assigned to flash glucose monitoring (0.53% vs. 0.20) (p=0.301). The hypoglycemic time under 70 mg/dL decreased 0.47 h/day ± 0.13 (p = 0.0006), and time under 55 mg/dL decreased 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014), in both cases favoring flash glucose monitoring compared with the control group. No serious adverse events related to the device occurred 37.

In the REPLACE study, total treatment satisfaction was greater in the flash glucose monitoring group (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 vs. 9 ± 0.72; P<0.0001) compared with capillary glucose measurement. The satisfaction with treatment results evaluated with the Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire (DQoL) showed a significant improvement in the intervention group (-0.2 ± 0.04) compared with the control group (0.0 ± 0.06); P=0.0259 37.

An analysis of the use of healthcare resources for all causes seen during the six-month treatment period in REPLACE, based on the United Kingdom NHS costs, showed that the flash glucose monitoring system is affordable compared with eight capillary glucose measurements in patients with poorly controlled T2DM on intensive insulin therapy, along with a decreased use of healthcare resources and reduced long-term hypoglycemic complications 38. Ontario Health Technology39 conducted a systematic review of economic studies and analyzed the budget impact of public financing of flash glucose monitoring in patients with T1DM and T2DM who need intensive insulin therapy. The five-year budget impact analysis found that flash glucose monitoring has a net budget impact of 11.7 million per year in T2DM and 30.9 million dollars at five years.

Expert panel discussion

The REPLACE study showed no difference in glycemic control between flash glucose monitoring and the intervention in the total population, but did show a difference in those under 65 years old. For the expert panel, this finding has the limitations inherent in subgroup analyses, but could produce hypotheses that need to be evaluated in new clinical studies. The lack of a structured program to identify and treat the glycemic disorders found in the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) or during scanning could explain the differences between REPLACE and real-life studies which show a clear improvement in HbA1c. These studies show a correlation between the number of scans and the HbA1c reduction, suggesting the decisive role of patient education and adherence. The decreased hypoglycemia shown in the REPLACE study seems to confirm what has been found in the use of flash glucose monitoring in T1DM, in which the decreased risk of hypoglycemia did not depend on a structured education program. The consensus panel considers that the evidence could change significantly over the next few years and eventually clarify the inconsistencies found in the effect of this technology on glycemic control in patients with T2DM. It should be noted that, in patients with complex insulin regimens and self-monitoring, the REPLACE study suggests benefits in the domains of patient preference and cost.

Recommendation

  1. The expert panel suggests using flash glucose monitoring in patients with T2DM treated with an intensive insulin regimen with poor glycemic control despite the use of capillary self-monitoring with multiple measurements and a structured education program. Very low certainty of the estimated effects.

RECOMMENDATION PRODUCED BY EXPERT CONSENSUS.

Question 5

Does flash glucose monitoring in patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus improve metabolic control metrics (time in range, time above range and time below range) and/or reduce maternal and fetal complications when compared with other glucose monitoring modalities such as capillary glucose measurements, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or subcutaneous insulin infusion integrated with a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system?

Summary of the evidence

No clinical studies were found comparing flash glucose monitoring with other monitoring alternatives and evaluating the outcomes specified by the consensus group. As indirect evidence, in 2018, Scott published a prospective multicentric study in 13 centers in the United Kingdom and Austria 40 using flash glucose monitoring in pregnant women, showing the safety and precision of the device in this population. This study included women diagnosed with T1DM (32.4%), T2DM (14.9%) or gestational diabetes (52.7%). Altogether, 39.2% were in their second trimester and 60.8% were in their third trimester, and the study included data from 74 women over the age of 18 with more than 12 weeks of gestation. The authors excluded patients with moderate or advanced kidney disease, a history of diabetic ketoacidosis within the previous six months, an allergy to adhesives, a history of preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated transaminases and thrombocytopenia) and the use of tocolytics for treating preterm labor during the current pregnancy. A total of 5,031 paired capillary glucose measurements and sensor readings were analyzed. The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD%) was 11.8%. Altogether, 88.1 and 99.8% of the flash glucose monitoring results fell within Zone A and Zones A and B of the Clarke error grid, respectively, when compared with capillary glucose measurements 40. The sensor's precision was not affected by the type of diabetes, pregnancy trimester, body mass index or type of insulin 40.

The CONCEPTT study 41 is a controlled clinical trial which showed the usefulness of rtCGM added to standard care, compared with self-monitoring using capillary glucose measurements, in pregnant patients with T1DM treated with multiple insulin doses, and its impact on perinatal outcomes such as reduction in the number of newborns diagnosed with large for gestational age (LGA), neonatal hypoglycemia or admission to neonatal intensive care. In addition, it showed a significant reduction in HbA1c, greater time in range (63-140 mg/dl), less time in hypoglycemia (<63 mg/dL) and reduced glycemic variability.

Kristensen's observational study described a population of pregnant women with T1DM who used rtCGM or flash glucose monitoring at any time during gestation. In a sub-analysis of this study there were no trimester-specific differences in time in range (63-140 mg/dL) nor in time above range (>140 mg/dL) between rtCGM and flash glucose monitoring. In addition, a clear trend towards improved glycemic control was shown as gestational age advanced, both in women treated with rtCGM as well as in the group treated with flash glucose monitoring 42. However, the women who used rtCGM had less hypoglycemic time.

Finally, a Cochrane systematic review was found comparing different glucose monitoring modalities in pregnant women with progestational diabetes, but which did not include the CONCEPTT study results. This review did not find any publication using intermittent flash-type monitoring as an intervention, either. The analysis of the various glucose monitoring methods showed no differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes, but it should be noted that few studies were included, these were of very low quality, and the study interventions varied with regard to type and time of use during gestation.

Expert panel discussion

Population studies report that only 15% of pregnant women achieve the HbA1c goal at the beginning of pregnancy, and despite multidisciplinary management with biweekly follow up in specialized clinics, only 40% of women with T1DM reach the HbA1c goal after pregnancy week 24 41,43. Maternal hyperglycemia is associated with maternal and fetal complications 44,45.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that blood glucose levels be assessed four to eight times per day to help achieve the glucose goals without increasing the number of hypoglycemic events 40,46,47. Strict metabolic control reduces the risk of macrosomia and thus all the risks it entails 48. However, the physiological changes during pregnancy (increased effective circulating volume, increased plasma exchange and anemia) decrease the reliability of Hb1AC 44, which in addition does not provide information regarding acute glycemic excursions; thus, the presence of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia in the course of the day cannot be evaluated 49. Therefore, daily capillary monitoring is essential. The panel considers that flash glucose monitoring should be used continuously throughout most of the pregnancy, as opposed to its intermittent use during only a few weeks, especially in patients with progestational T1DM. These recommendations are based on an expert recommendation due to the very low quality of evidence, and may change substantially as new evidence emerges.

Recommendations

  1. The use of rtCGM is recommended over flash glucose monitoring in patients with pregestational type 1 diabetes mellitus outside of the pregnancy goals (HbA1c >65%).

  2. RECOMMENDATION. LOW CONFIDENCE IN THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

  3. 2. The continuous use of flash glucose monitoring is suggested over self-monitoring with capillary glucose measurements in patients with pregestational T1DM outside of the pregnancy goals (HbA1c >65%) who do not have access to rtCGM.

  4. VERY LOW CERTAINTY IN THE EVIDENCE - RECOMMENDATION PRODUCED BY EXPERT CONSENSUS.

  5. Flash glucose monitoring is suggested over capillary glucose measurements in patients with pregestational T2DM or gestational diabetes who have persistently poor metabolic control despite standard nutritional and pharmacological treatment or in whom fetal complications, such as macrosomia, are suspected.

  6. VERY LOW CERTAINTY IN THE EVIDENCE - RECOMMENDATION PRODUCED BY EXPERT CONSENSUS.

Question 6

What is the impact of flash glucose monitoring on quality of life or patient-reported outcomes in patients over the age of 18 with T1DM and T2DM treated with insulin?

Summary of the evidence

Two published systematic reviews were found. Castellana et al. 50 published a systematic review in 2020 which included 20 studies with more than eight weeks' follow up and evaluated 2,173 patients with T1DM and T2DM with multiple doses or continuous subcutaneous infusion of insulin. The comparator was self-monitoring with capillary glucose measurement 50. The other systematic review was published by Cowart et al. in 2019 and includes nine studies of patients with T1DM and T2DM which also evaluated the previously mentioned glycemic control metrics, overall patient-reported satisfaction, and diabetes-related stress 24. The outcomes reported by the studies varied and are reported in Annexes 1 and 2.

Expert panel discussion

Despite having two published systematic reviews, the results are derived from only a few studies. The results of the IMPACT study on T1DM were analyzed without finding a significant improvement in quality of life. The only thing that showed significant improvement was the global satisfaction results reported by the patients using the DTSQ. Patients with T2DM did report improved quality of life on the DQoL questionnaire and treatment satisfaction on the DTSQ. However, there were no differences in other questionnaires such as the DDS or the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL). The panel of experts considers that the results are heterogenous and even if the scale domains are analyzed separately, there are different results for each of them. Despite having two published systematic reviews, the results are produced only by the IMPACT study 16 for T1DM and the REPLACE study 37 for T2DM. On that basis, the expert committee considers that using flash glucose monitoring solely to improve the quality of life is not justified, and therefore does not recommend using it for this sole objective.

Recommendation

The panel of experts does not issue a recommendation for the use of flash glucose monitoring as a tool for improving quality of life or other patient-reported outcomes.

VERY LOW CERTAINTY OF THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

Question 7

Does flash glucose monitoring improve glycemic control in diabetic patients hospitalized for hyperglycemia, compared with capillary glucose measurements?

Evidence summary

Six studies were found; of these, two studies used flash glucose monitoring. However, none of these studies reported the outcomes of interest. Recently, Galindo published a prospective study of 97 patients diagnosed with T2DM hospitalized in a general ward with an admission glucose level >140 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL, no ketoacidosis, and treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen and blind flash glucose monitoring using the FreeStyle Libre Pro device 51. The primary objective was to evaluate the difference between CGM vs. capillary glucose measurement data. The average glucose was 188.9 ± 37.3 mg/dL vs. 176.1 ± 46.9 mg/dL, with an estimated difference of 12.8 mg/dL (CI 8.3-17.2); and time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL) was 48.4 ± 22.9% for capillary glucose measurement compared with 53.5 ± 28.8% (p<0.001) for CGM 51. More level 1 (<70 mg/dL), level 2 (<54 mg/ dL) and <40 mg/dL hypoglycemic events were detected in CGM users, especially during the night 51. As a secondary objective, the numeric precision was evaluated using the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), showing an acceptable correlation when compared with capillary glucose measurements, except for values under 70 mg/dL. However, this analysis was performed using a very small number of events 51. Regarding clinical precision, 98% of the glucose values were in Zones A and B 51.

In 2017, Ancona published a pilot study of eight patients with T2DM hospitalized in an intensive care unit, seven of whom required vasopressor support. The primary objective was to evaluate the precision and accuracy of flash glucose monitoring in critically ill patients. The flash glucose monitoring readings were consistently lower than the arterial glucose measurements, with a 14% MARD, considering that the reliability of the readings produced by this device was acceptable in the intensive care unit 52.

Expert panel discussion

Hyperglycemia and glycemic variability in the hospital setting is related to adverse events like death, prolonged stay and increased costs 53. Between 12 and 25% of hospitalized patients have a history of diabetes, and 50% of patients admitted to intensive care units have diabetes or prediabetes 54. Various hospital studies have shown the precision and usefulness of CGM for detecting hyper and hypoglycemic events, especially during the night in the general ward 51,55. The panel of experts considers that these studies focus on the precision of these devices with a short follow up period and small number of patients, which does not allow clinically relevant outcomes like decreased hypoglycemic events, complication rates, mortality or hospital stay to be evaluated. Likewise, the studies which have evaluated the impact of CGM on glycemic control have shown no differences in average glucose compared with capillary glucose measurements.

The panel of experts considers that the implementation of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital has the potential to decrease the burden of care for hospital nursing staff and facilitates the follow up of patients with complex insulin regimens during hospitalization and after discharge. However, limitations such as making the patient responsible for scanning, the lack of automatic cloud data synchronization, the lack of alarms to alert the healthcare team, the need to transport the device to download data and the lack of cost analyses qualify its implementation in the hospital. Considering the above, there is no evidence to issue a recommendation in favor of or against this intervention.

Recommendation

The expert committee does not issue a recommendation for using flash monitoring to manage hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.

VERY LOW CERTAINTY OF THE ESTIMATED EFFECTS.

References

1. Introduction: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(Suppl 1):S1-2. [ Links ]

2. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, Bergenstal RM, Close KL, DeVries JH, et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring SUPPLEMENTARY DATA APPENDIX. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2017;40(14):1631-10. Available from: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.2337/dc17-1600%0Ahttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29162583Links ]

3. Tamborlane W V, Beck RW, Bode BW, Buckingham B, Chase HP, Clemons R, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct;359(14):1464-76. [ Links ]

4. Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. Bmj. 2011;343(7815). [ Links ]

5. Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet Med. 2018 Apr;35(4):472-82. [ Links ]

6. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, Bergenstal RM, Close KL, Devries JH, et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. 2017;40(December):1631-40. [ Links ]

7. Gómez AM, Yepes CA, Arevalo C, Mantilla B, Vallejo S, Mora E, et al. Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de los pacientes mayores de 15 años con diabetes mellitus tipo 1 [Internet]. Vol. 62. 2016. 1-533 p. Available from: http://gpc.minsalud.gov.co/guias/Documents/diabetes/Guia_Diabetes_Profesionales_tipo_1.pdfLinks ]

8. Aschner M, Muñoz V, Mauricio O, García M, Ángela L, Fernanda L, et al. Guía de práctica clínica para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la diabetes. 2016; [ Links ]

9. IDF. IDF DIABETES ATLAS[Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://fmdiabetes.org/atlas-idf-2017/Links ]

10. Halcomb E, Davidson P, Hardaker L. Using the consensus development conference method in healthcare research. Nurse Res. 2008;16(1):56-71. [ Links ]

11. Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Med Teach. 2017 Jan;39(1):14-9. [ Links ]

12. Neumann I, Brignardello-Petersen R, Wiercioch W, Carrasco-Labra A, Cuello C, Akl E, et al. The GRADE evidence-to-decision framework: a report of its testing and application in 15 international guideline panels. Implement Sci. 2016 Jul;11:93. [ Links ]

13. Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brożek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;81:101-10. [ Links ]

14. Zhang Y, Coello PA, Brożek J, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Akl EA, et al. Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 May;15(1):52. [ Links ]

15. Waggoner J, Carline JD, Durning SJ. Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Acad Med. 2016 May;91(5):663-8. [ Links ]

16. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2254-63. [ Links ]

17. Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Al Dawish MA. Evaluation of FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycemic Control, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Fear of Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes. 2017;10:1179551417746957. [ Links ]

18. Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Al Dawish MA. Differences of FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System and Finger Pricks on Clinical Characteristics and Glucose Monitoring Satisfactions in Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Pump. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes. 2019;12:1179551419861102. [ Links ]

19. Kramer G, Michalak L, Müller UA, Kloos C, Werner C, Kuniss N. Association between Flash Glucose Monitoring and Metabolic Control as well as Treatment Satisfaction in Outpatients With Diabetes Type 1. Exp Clin Endocrinol diabetes Off journal, Ger Soc Endocrinol [and] Ger Diabetes Assoc. 2019 Jun; [ Links ]

20. Moreno-Fernandez J, Pazos-Couselo M, González-Rodriguez M, Rozas P, Delgado M, Aguirre M, et al. Clinical value of Flash glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Endocrinol diabetes y Nutr. 2018 Dec;65(10):556-63. [ Links ]

21. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, Spanudakis E, Anantharaja S, Oliver N. A randomized controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2018 Apr;35(4):483-90. [ Links ]

22. Reddy M, Jugnee N, Anantharaja S, Oliver N. Switching from Flash Glucose Monitoring to Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes at High Hypoglycemia Risk: The Extension Phase of the I HART CGM Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018 Nov;20(11):751-7. [ Links ]

23. Hermanns N, Ehrmann D, Schipfer M, Kroger J, Haak T, Kulzer B. The impact of a structured education and treatment programme (FLASH) for people with diabetes using a flash sensor-based glucose monitoring system: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Apr;150:111-21. [ Links ]

24. Cowart K, Updike W, Bullers K. Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Glycemic Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction of Intermittent-Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 May;22(5):337-45. [ Links ]

25. Evans M, Welsh Z, Ells S, Seibold A. The Impact of Flash Glucose Monitoring on Glycaemic Control as Measured by HbA1c: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials and Real-World Observational Studies. Diabetes Ther Res Treat Educ diabetes Relat Disord. 2020 Jan;11(1):83-95. [ Links ]

26. Charleer S, De Block C, Van Huffel L, Broos B, Fieuws S, Nobels F, et al. Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): A prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(2):389-97. [ Links ]

27. Stimson RH, Dover AR, Ritchie SA, Wright RJ, McKnight JA, Zammitt NN, et al. HbA1c response and hospital admissions following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes. BMJ open diabetes Res care. 2020 Jul;8(1). [ Links ]

28. Hansen KW. Effects of unrestricted access to flash glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2020;3(3):10-5. [ Links ]

29. Lameijer A, Fokkert MJ, Edens MA, Slingerland RJ, Bilo HJG, van Dijk PR. Determinants of HbA1c reduction with FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitoring (FLARE-NL 5). J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2020 Dec;22:100237. [ Links ]

30. Tyndall V, Stimson RH, Zammitt NN, Ritchie SA, McKnight JA, Dover AR, et al. Marked improvement in HbA(1c) following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2019 Aug;62(8):1349-56. [ Links ]

31. Laurenzi A, Caretto A, Barrasso M, Bolla AM, Dozio N, Molinari C, et al. Frequency of flash glucose monitoring readings, hemoglobin A1c and time in range: a real life study in adults with type 1 diabetes. Acta Diabetol [Internet]. 2020;(0123456789):10-2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-020-01577-7Links ]

32. Paris I, Henry C, Pirard F, Gérard A-C, Colin IM. The new FreeStyle libre flash glucose monitoring system improves the glycaemic control in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes followed in real-life conditions over a period of one year. Endocrinol diabetes Metab. 2018 Jul; 1(3):e00023. [ Links ]

33. Dunn TC, Xu Y, Hayter G, Ajjan RA. Real-world flash glucose monitoring patterns and associations between self-monitoring frequency and glycaemic measures: A European analysis of over 60 million glucose tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018 Mar; 137:37-46. [ Links ]

34. McIntyre HD. Dose adjustment for normal eating: A role for the expert patient? Diabetes Metab J.2014;38(2):87-91. [ Links ]

35. Bruttomesso D, Laviola L, Avogaro A, Bonora E, Del Prato S, Frontoni S, et al. The use of real time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes: A consensus view of Italian diabetes experts using the Delphi method. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 May;29(5):421-31. [ Links ]

36. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(Suppl 1):S85-99. [ Links ]

37. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline JP, Rayman G. Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55-73. [ Links ]

38. Hellmund R, Weitgasser R, Blissett D. Cost Calculation for a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Intensive Insulin - a UK Perspective. Eur Endocrinol. 2018 Sep;14(2):86-92. [ Links ]

39. Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19(8):1-108. [ Links ]

40. Scott EM, Bilous RW, Kautzky-Willer A. Accuracy, User Acceptability, and Safety Evaluation for the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System When Used by Pregnant Women with Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(3):180-8. [ Links ]

41. Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, Murphy KE, Amiel SA, Hunt KF, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2347-59. [ Links ]

42. Kristensen K, Ögge LE, Sengpiel V, Kjölhede K, Dotevall A, Elfvin A, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: an observational cohort study of 186 pregnancies. Diabetologia. 2019 Jul;62(7):1143-53. [ Links ]

43. Murphy HR, Bell R, Cartwright C, Curnow P, Maresh M, Morgan M, et al. Improved pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes but substantial clinic-to-clinic variations: a prospective nationwide study. Diabetologia. 2017 Sep;60(9):1668-77. [ Links ]

44. McCance DR, Casey C. Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2019 Sep;48(3):495-509. [ Links ]

45. Battarbee AN, Venkatesh KK, Aliaga S, Boggess KA. The association of pre-gestational and gestational diabetes with severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. J Perinatol. 2020;40(2):232-9. [ Links ]

46. Jones L V., Ray A, Moy FM, Buckley BS. Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 2019(5). [ Links ]

47. Health NCC for MH. Type 1 diabetes in adults. Nice [Internet]. 2014;95(1131):68-73. Available from: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84904489187&partnerID=40&md5=00c4bb0222c0a9a1117baa e1aeaa6232Links ]

48. Geurtsen ML, van Soest EEL, Voerman E, Steegers EAP, Jaddoe VWV, Gaillard R. High maternal early-pregnancy blood glucose levels are associated with altered fetal growth and increased risk of adverse birth outcomes. Diabetologia. 2019;62(10):1880-90. [ Links ]

49. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(Suppl 1):S200-10. [ Links ]

50. Castellana M, Parisi C, Di Molfetta S, Di Gioia L, Natalicchio A, Perrini S, et al. Efficacy and safety of flash glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open diabetes Res care. 2020 Jun; 8(1). [ Links ]

51. Galindo RJ, Migdal AL, Davis GM, Urrutia MA, Albury B, Zambrano C, et al. Comparison of the freestyle libre pro flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system and point-of-care capillary glucose testing in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimen. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(11):2730-5. [ Links ]

52. Ancona P, Eastwood GM, Lucchetta L, Ekinci EI, Bellomo R, Mârtensson J. The performance of flash glucose monitoring in critically ill patients with diabetes. Crit care Resusc J Australas Acad Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun;19(2):167-74. [ Links ]

53. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(Suppl 1):S211-20. [ Links ]

54. Clement S, Braithwaite SS, Magee MF, Ahmann A, Smith EP, Schafer RG, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Care. 2004 Feb;27(2):553-91. [ Links ]

55. Gomez AM, Umpierrez GE. Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Insulin-Treated Patients in Non-ICU Settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol [Internet]. 2014;8(5):930-6. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1932296814546025Links ]

56. Campbell FM, Murphy NP, Stewart C, Biester T, Kordonouri O. Outcomes of using flash glucose monitoring technology by children and young people with type 1 diabetes in a single arm study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Nov;19(7):1294-301. [ Links ]

57. Landau Z, Abiri S, Gruber N, Levy-Shraga Y, Brener A, Lebenthal Y, et al. Use of flash glucose-sensing technology (FreeStyle Libre) in youth with type 1 diabetes: AWeSoMe study group real-life observational experience. Acta Diabetol. 2018 Dec;55(12):1303-10. [ Links ]

58. Messaaoui A, Tenoutasse S, Crenier L. Flash Glucose Monitoring Accepted in Daily Life of Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Reduction of Severe Hypoglycemia in Real-Life Use. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Jun;21(6):329-35. [ Links ]

59. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, Landau Z, Ganz T, Yanuv I, et al. Effect of Flash Glucose Monitoring Technology on Glycemic Control and Treatment Satisfaction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul;42(7):1178-84. [ Links ]

ABREVIATIONS

ADDQoL:

Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life.

AGP:

ambulatory glucose profile

CEA:

cost-effectiveness analysis

DAFNE:

Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating

DDS:

Diabetes Distress Scale

DM:

Diabetes mellitus

T1DM:

Type 1 diabetes mellitu

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

DQoL:

Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire

DTSQ:

Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire

EtD:

Evidence to Decision

HbA1c:

Glycosylated hemoglobin

HFS:

Hypoglycemia Fear Survey

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

IDF:

International Diabetes Federation

CGM:

Continuous glucose monitoring

RtCGM:

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring

MOOSE:

Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

NHS:

National Health Service

NICE:

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

SF-36:

36-Item Short Form Health Survey

TIR:

time in range

TAR:

time above range

TBR:

time below range

NICU:

neonatal intensive care unit

ANNEX 1

Outcomes reported by patients with T1DM. Adapted from Castellana et al. (51).

Studies, year. Type of study Measurement tool Patient-reported outcomes
Positive findings at the end of follow up Improvement compared with the baseline measurement Improvement compared with capillary glucose measurements
Al Hayeck, 2017 (2) Prospective study HFS (children) - Yes -
PedsQL 3.0 DM Questionnaire - Yes -
Al Hayeck, 2019 (3) Prospective study Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey - Yes -
Bolinder, 2016 (4) Controlled clinical trial DDS - - No
DQoL - - Yes
DTSQ - - Yes
HFS - - No
Campbell, 2018 (5) Prospective study DTSQ (teen) - Yes -
DTSQ (parent version) - Yes -
Kramer, 2019 (6) Prospective study DTSQ - Yes -
Landau, 2018 (7) Real-life study - - - -
Messaaoui, 2019 (8) Real-life study Likert scale Yes - -
Moreno Fernandez, 2018 (9) Retrospective study - - - -
Paris, 2018 (10) Prospective study - - - -
DDS: Diabetes Distress Scale; DQoL: Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire; DTSQ: Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; HFS: Hypoglycemia Fear Survey; FGM: Flash Glucose Monitoring.

ANNEX 2

Outcoomes reported by patients with T2DM. Adapted from Castellana et al. (51).

Studies, year. Type of study Measurement tool Patient-reported outcomes
Positive findings at the end of follow up Improvement compared with the baseline measurement Improvement compared with capillary glucode measurements
Haak, 2017 (37) Controlled clinical trial DDS - - No
DQoL - - No
DTSQ status - - Yes
DTSQ change - - Yes
Yaron, 2019 (57) Controlled clinical trial Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life Yes - No
DTSQ status (Hebrew version) Yes - No
DTSQ change Yes - No
DDS: Diabetes Distress Scale; DQoL: Diabetes Quality of Life Questionnaire; DTSQ: Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire; HFS: Hypoglycemia Fear Survey.

Received: June 24, 2020; Accepted: March 31, 2022

*Correspondencia: Dra. Diana Henao. Bogotá, D.C. (Colombia). E-Mail: d-henao@javeriana.edu.co

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License