Self-monitoring of glucose levels for people with type 2 diabetes

The options of the management of self-monitoring of blood glucose in primary health care centres by the diabetes nurses and patients

The aims of the present study were to investigate the diabetes nurse specialists (DNS) practice according to the local diabetic guideline, to study the DNSs' opinion of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and prescription of test-strips, to investigate the patients' opinions and habits when using SMBG. Users of SMBG (n=533 patients') and all DNSs (n=25) were telephone interviewed. Only a few DNSs used local guidelines, the majority had their own prescribing strategy of SMBG. In conclusion, DNSs were aware of the guidelines but did not use them to support their decision regarding the reasons for prescribing SMBG or not. For diabetes patients, reassurance was the most important issue in having access to SMBG, despite the fact that one-third retested but did not change their behaviour and nearly 15% contacted their DNS for advice.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes who do not use insulin--are guidelines evidence-based?

AIMS

To evaluate if clinical practice guideline recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes not using insulin follow the principles of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

After a search from 1999 to 2011, 18 clinical practice guidelines were included. Recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose were graded on a scale from one (strongly against self-monitoring) to four (strongly in favour of self-monitoring) and compared with the similarly graded conclusions of systematic reviews that were cited by the clinical practice guidelines. We also investigated how clinical practice guideline characteristics, for example funding sources, and quality of references cited could be related to the guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The clinical practice guidelines cited in total 15 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, 33 non-randomized controlled trials papers and 18 clinical practice guidelines or position statements. The clinical practice guideline recommendations had an average grade of 3.4 (range 2.0-4.0). Higher grades were seen for clinical practice guidelines that acknowledged industry funding (mean value 4.0) or were issued by organizations depending on private funding (mean value 3.6 vs. 3.0 for governmental funding). The conclusions of the 15 systematic reviews had a mean grade of 2.2 (range 1.0-3.8). Systematic reviews with low grades were less cited. In total, 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic reviews. Approximately half of these evaluated an educational intervention where the effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose could not be clearly isolated.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practice guidelines were more in favour of self-monitoring use than the systematic reviews that were cited. The citation practice was non-systematic and industry funding seemingly led to a more positive attitude towards use of self-monitoring of blood glucose.

The relationship between type of drug therapy and blood glucose self-monitoring test strips claimed by beneficiaries of the Seniors' Pharmacare Program in Nova Scotia, Canada

BACKGROUND

The healthcare expenditure on self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips under the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program (NSSPP) has increased significantly in recent years. The objective of this study was to identify the frequency and cost of claims for blood glucose monitoring test strips by NSSPP beneficiaries in the fiscal year 2005/06 and to explore the variation in the use of test strips by type of treatment, age and sex.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted using pharmacy administrative claims data for NSSPP beneficiaries. Study subjects were aged > or = 65 years on October 1, 2004, received SMBG test strips in the 110 days prior to April 1, 2005, and were alive throughout the twelve month study period. Subjects were categorized into four groups: insulin only, oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAA) only, both OAA and insulin; and no reimbursed diabetes medications. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences in expenditure by medication group and in frequency of SMBG test strips claimed by medication group, age, and sex.

RESULTS

Of 13,564 included beneficiaries, 13.2% were categorized as insulin only, 53.5% OAA only, 7.2% both OAA and insulin, and 26.0% no reimbursed diabetes medications. Over half (58.7%) were femle. The insulin only category had the highest mean (+/- SD) number of SMBG test strips claimed per day (2.0 +/- 1.5) with a mean annual total cost of $615 +/- $441/beneficiary. Beneficiaries aged 80 years and above claimed fewer test strips than beneficiaries below 80 years.

CONCLUSION

This population based study shows that in Nova Scotia the SMBG test strips claimed by the majority of seniors were within Canadian guidelines. However, a small proportion of beneficiaries claimed for SMBG test strips infrequently or too frequently, which suggests areas for improvement. The provincial drug plan covers the majority of the costs of test strip utilization, suggesting that the majority of test strips claimed did not exceed the maximum allowable cost (MAC) established in the program's MAC policy. Drug insurance programs need to work with healthcare providers to determine if patients are using test strips optimally; and to determine their impact on patient outcomes. In addition, they need to determine the cost-effectiveness of their SMBG test strip reimbursement policies.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have shown inconsistent results with regard to whether or not self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is related to better glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to explore the use of SMBG and its association with glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 2003 at 18 primary health care centres in Sweden, in which all known patients with diabetes were surveyed. The study included 6495 patients with type 2 diabetes. A sample of 896 patients was selected for further exploration of data from medical records. A telephone interview was performed with all patients in this group using SMBG (533 patients).

RESULTS

There were no differences in HbA1c levels between users (6.9%) and non-users (6.8%) of SMBG in patients treated with insulin or in patients treated with oral agents (6.3% in both groups). In patients treated with diet only, users of SMBG had higher levels of HbA1c compared with non-users (5.5% vs. 5.4%, p =0.002). Comparing medical records between users and non-users of SMBG showed no differences in diabetes-related complications in any treatment category group.

CONCLUSION

The use of SMBG was not associated with improved glycaemic control in any therapy category of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. The absence of difference in glycaemic control between users and non-users of SMBG could not be explained by differences in comorbidity between users and non-users of SMBG.

Self-assessment of health and social care needs by older people: a review

This article explores the meaning and significance of 'self-assessment', a term that is increasingly being used in relation to developments affecting community practice. Self-assessment for health and social care needs has been used over a considerable period of time and for purposes as diverse as case finding for depression to assessment of housing options. Self-assessment has usually involved the use of short scales and questionnaires, but it can involve the use of physiological tests (such as testing urine for glucose) or complex, computerized decision-support systems. Although often explored as a simple means for extending the 'reach' of professional assessments (e.g. mass screening) and ensuring 'appropriate' use of health services (e.g. self-care algorithms), self-assessment is increasingly being advocated as a means of actively involving and empowering service users. However, a recent review of the topic (Griffiths et al, 2005) revealed the complexity of the topic and the pitfalls of a simplistic approach to self-assessment, which those engaged in developing the process should bear in mind.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been found to be effective for patients with type 1 diabetes and for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. There is much debate on the effectiveness of SMBG as a tool in the self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases supplemented with hand searches of references of retrieved articles. Date of last search: September 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trails investigating the effects of SMBG compared with usual care and/or with self-monitoring of urine glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who where not using insulin. Included studies should have used at least one of the following outcome measures: glycaemic control, quality of life, well-being, patient satisfaction, or hypoglycaemic episodes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data from included studies and assessed study quality. Data from the studies were compared to decide whether they were sufficiently homogeneous to pool in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Four trials compared SMBG with usual care, one trial compared SMBG with self-monitoring of urine glucose and there was one three-armed trial comparing SMBG with self-monitoring of urine glucose and usual care. Because of the differences in patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes between the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The methodological quality of studies was low. Two of the six studies reported a significant lowering effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on HbA1c. However, one of these studies had a co-intervention with education on diet and lifestyle. There were few data on the effects of other outcomes and these effects were not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From this review we concluded that self-monitoring of blood glucose might be effective in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin. To assess the potential beneficial effects of SMBG in these patients a large and well-designed randomised controlled trial is required. This long-term trial should also investigate patient-related outcomes like quality of life, well-being and patient satisfaction, and provide adequate education to the patient to allow SMBG to be effective.

Glucose self-monitoring in primary care: a survey of current practice

BACKGROUND

The role of long-term glycaemic control in minimizing long-term complications of diabetes mellitus is evidence-based and national guidelines recommend a target glycosylated haemoglobin level of approximately 7%. Although the role of self-monitoring blood and urine glucose is less well defined, this activity consumes vast National Health Service (NHS) resources.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to (i) determine the current practice of glucose self-monitoring in primary care, (ii) determine any changes to therapy made as a result and (iii) compare monitoring and frequency of monitoring in those patients using insulin with those patients taking oral hypoglycaemic agents.

METHODS

Postal questionnaire to 311 patients using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents identified from three general practices.

RESULTS

The response rate was 59.8% (186/311), with the majority of responding patients (n = 158, 87.3%) performing self-monitoring. The patients using insulin were more likely to be self-monitoring than those taking oral therapy (chi(2), P < 0.001, d.f. = 1). The majority of patients who self-monitored and were using insulin (n = 45, 61.1%) altered the dose of insulin if a reading was beyond their target range. However, the majority of patients who self-monitored and were taking oral therapy (n = 48, 68.6%) took no action at all.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood glucose self-monitoring was common in those treated with insulin or oral hypoglycaemics, although those using insulin were more likely to self-monitor. Notably many patients, particularly those on oral therapy, took no action based on the results of self-monitoring.

Statins and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

A mini-review (Griffiths, 2002) of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the long-term effect of lipid lowering treatments (statins versus placebo) in secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI). The population sample was adult patients with a history of MI, documented coronary heart disease or coronary artery disease. The Cochrane Library and the database Medline were searched and three RCTs appeared to possess all of the stipulated inclusion and exclusion criteria. The trials all compared statins against a placebo; one trial was of simvastatin--the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (1994)--and the other two were of pravastatin--the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial (CARE) (Sacks et al, 1996) and Long Term Intervention with Pravastatin Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) (Anon, 1998). The trials demonstrated that statins had a clear and consistent effect in significantly reducing the risk of MI. Overall an approximate decline of 30% in MI was produced from the three trials.

Evidence informing practice: introducing the mini-review

The use of evidence to inform health-care practice has long been advocated. However, in practice it is often difficult and widely misunderstood (Griffiths, 1999). For example, community nurses often rely on potentially biased information from drug company sales people (Luker and Kenrick, 1992). Instead we are now urged to make use of current research-based knowledge to inform our decision-making and to critically appraise what we find (Sackett et al, 1996). For many this might be interpreted as the use of authoritative text books and review articles. Unfortunately (or fortunately) Antman and colleagues (1992) showed clearly how the recommendations of text books and even ‘scholarly’ reviews could completely misrepresent or ignore the available evidence. The practitioner then faces the often-daunting task of finding and appraising the primary research himself or herself.