Questions Over Value Of Glucose Monitoring For Non-insulin Using Diabetes Patients
Main Category: DiabetesArticle Date: 26 Jun 2007 - 1:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4.25 (8 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.33 (3 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
A new study published on bmj.com today (Tuesday 26 June) questions the value of blood glucose monitoring among patients with well-controlled, non-insulin dependent (type 2) diabetes.
The research, being presented today at the American Diabetes Association Conference, suggests that current guidelines for self-monitoring among these patients should be reviewed.
Non-insulin dependent (type 2) diabetes usually develops in people over 40, especially when the person is overweight. In most cases, insulin injections are not needed. Instead, a combination of dietary measures, weight reduction, and oral medication controls the condition.
Self monitoring for type 2 diabetes is costly, but many doctors believe that it helps to control blood glucose levels and it is commonly recommended. Although some studies have suggested benefits, evidence of effectiveness is still inconclusive.
So Dr Andrew Farmer and colleagues set out to test whether self-monitoring can improve blood glucose control in non-insulin using patients compared with standard care.
They identified 453 non-insulin using type 2 diabetes patients from 48 general practices.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The control group received standard care with three-monthly HbA1c measurements by a health professional (a measure of the amount of glucose attached to red blood cells).
The second group was given a meter with advice to contact their clinician for interpretation of results (less intensive self-monitoring), while the third group was given a meter and trained to interpret the readings and apply the results (more-intensive self monitoring).
At 12 months, there was no difference in HbA1c between the groups. There was also no evidence that intensity of monitoring was related to improvements in glucose control.
This trial provides no convincing evidence of an effect of blood glucose monitoring, with or without instruction, in improving glucose control compared with usual care, say the authors.
Routine self-monitoring of blood glucose for reasonably well-controlled non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes appears to offer, at best, small advantages, is not well accepted, and the cost, effort and time involved in the procedures may be better directed to supporting other health-related behaviours, they add.
They suggest that current guidelines for the use of self-monitoring among these patients should be reviewed.
The impact of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated diabetes: an open parallel group randomised trial
BMJ Online First
http://www.bmj.com
Visit our diabetes section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75162.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75162.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Unfair To Type 2 Patients
posted by Sarah on 26 Jun 2007 at 9:51 amI'm surprised that a study with hardly any evidence can be so taken so seriously, as to suggest that Type 2 patients may not after all be needing regular glucose monitoring.
I can, of course, only write about this because of my own experience. I was officially diagnosed as a Type 2 about two years ago with an A1c of 6.8 with some protein in my urine. I decided to change my lifestyle instead of going on medicnes and have now an A1c of 5.9. I also have diabetic neuropathy and had a "foot drop" last August, which did resolve itself, very fortunately after a few months. The "foot drop" was diagnosed as an effect of my neuropathy by my doctors.
I was given a glucose monitor by my doctor, with which, I have been testing myself very regularly for these last couple of years. I think without it, it would have been impossible to decrease my A1c to a 5.9.
Is this study not an unfair penalty to type 2 patients who choose lifestyle changes over medicines and then succeed? Instead of getting a "pat on our backs" we have to read studies like these. Is this study going to help the diabetes epidemic, which is presently sweeping the world?
Wouldn't it be better to spend money on glucose monitors to diabetic patients and see that they continue with their lifestyle changes and be less of a burden on already burdened health health care systems around the world? Or would it better to not give the glucose monitors to them and thus almost make sure that they go back to uncontrolled diabetes?
This study and others like may have an influence on health insurance companies; it is certainly not doing a service to the type 2 diabetics who have successfully managed to decrease their A1c levels to more accebtable ones.
And it is type 2 which make most of the diabetic community around the world, not type 1.
I am, and I'm sure other patients like me must be also, very concerned about this study and do hope that it's taken with a pinch of salt.
Sincerely,
Sarah
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




