Credits Earned (2024) Crédits obtenus

Redeem Prepaid Membership

Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#3 Glucose Self-Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetics Not Using Insulin: Is it Bitter Sweet?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What are the pros and cons of self-monitoring blood glucose for Type 2 diabetics not using insulin?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Routine self-monitoring of blood glucose in Type 2 diabetics who do not use insulin has no clinical benefits, is not cost-effective, and may reduce quality of life.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
An individual-patient-level meta-analysis1 of six Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with 2,552 patients managing their Type 2 diabetes without insulin: 
  • Mean HbA1c at baseline 8.3% (~1/4 had baseline HbA1c >9%). 
  • Self-monitoring of blood glucose reduced HbA1c by: 
    • 0.2% at six months. 
    • 0.35% at one year. 
    • This is below the minimum difference thought to be clinically important (>0.5%).2 
Systematic review3 of 12 RCTs (3,259 patients) also found: 
  • No difference in: 
    • Overall wellbeing or quality of life. 
    • Symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes. 
  • HbA1c reduced by 0.3%. 
RCT of 1,024 patients with median baseline HbA1c 7.3% 
  • Self-monitoring blood glucose weekly lowered HbA1c by only 0.12% compared to monitoring twice yearly.  
    • Despite highly-motivated patients and intensive follow-up in these RCTs, only one-third to one-half of patients adhered to the self-monitoring protocol over 12 months.4-7  
Context:  
  • Other systematic reviews8,9 and RCTs with more intensively-structured self-monitoring plans7 show similar, clinically insignificant differences. 
  • Trials thus far have been underpowered to evaluate the effect on clinical outcomes 
    • The achieved 0.2-0.35% HbA1c reduction would be expected to reduce clinical outcomes related to diabetes by a mere relative 3-8%.10 
    • Some RCTs6,11 and supporting studies12 show worsening depressive symptoms6,12 and negative impact on quality of life11,12 with self-monitoring. 
    • Regular self-monitoring is not cost-effective.11 
    • Eight public drug plans are spending $247 million/year on test strips,13 so the total Canadian expenditure would be far more. 
    • While regular self-monitoring in Type 2 diabetics not on insulin appears unnecessary, this population should still know how to test their blood glucose in case they have symptoms of hypoglycemia, they are feeling ill, or they are interested in seeing the impacts of lifestyle behaviors. 
Reviewed: August 19, 2016 by Ricky


gary satenstein January 23, 2023

confirms what I thought


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP

1. Farmer AJ, Perera R, Ward A, et al. BMJ. 2012; 344:e486.

2. Type 2 diabetes mellitus, NICE guidelines. 2016. Available for download at: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/ktt12/chapter/evidence-context. Last accessed: November 8, 2016.

3. Malanda UL, Welschen LMC, Riphagen II, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 1:CD005060.

4. Bosi E, Scavini M, Ceriello A, et al. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36:2887-94.

5. Farmer A, Wade A, Goyder E, et al. BMJ. 2007; 335:132-40.

6. O’Kane MJ, Bunting B, Copeland M, et al. BMJ. 2008; 336:1174-7.

7. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, et al. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34:262-7.

8. Clar C, Barnard K, Cummins E, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14(12):1-140.

9. McIntosh B, Yu C, Lal A, et al. Open Medicine. 2010; 4:E102.

10. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil AW, et al. BMJ. 2000; 321:405-12.

11. Simon J, Gray A, Clarke P, et al. BMJ. 2008; 336:1177-80.

12. Franciosi M, Pellegrini F, De Berardis G, et al. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24:1870-7.

13. Cameron C, Virani A, Dean H, et al. Can J Diabetes. 2010; 34:34-40.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.

Most recent review: 19/08/2016

By: Ricky D. Turgeon BSc(Pharm) ACPR PharmD

Comments:

Evidence Updated: New evidence; Bottom Line: No change.

Learning at a glance
Yearly credits
Acquired ()
Your content by topic
Cardiology Dermatology Emergency
My Bookmarks