Thorsten Siegmund1, Lutz Heinemann2, Ralf Kolassa3, Andreas Thomas4. 1. 1 Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolism, Isar Klinikum, Munich, Germany. 2. 2 Science & Co GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany. 3. 3 Diabetes Center, Bergheim/Erft, Germany. 4. 4 Medtronic GmbH, Meerbusch, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For decades, the major source of information used to make therapeutic decisions by patients with diabetes has been glucose measurements using capillary blood samples. Knowledge gained from clinical studies, for example, on the impact of metabolic control on diabetes-related complications, is based on such measurements. Different to traditional blood glucose measurement systems, systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measure glucose in interstitial fluid (ISF). The assumption is that glucose levels in blood and ISF are practically the same and that the information provided can be used interchangeably. Thus, therapeutic decisions, that is, the selection of insulin doses, are based on CGM system results interpreted as though they were blood glucose values. METHODS: We performed a more detailed analysis and interpretation of glucose profiles obtained with CGM in situations with high glucose dynamics to evaluate this potentially misleading assumption. RESULTS: Considering physical activity, hypoglycemic episodes, and meal-related differences between glucose levels in blood and ISF uncover clinically relevant differences that can make it risky from a therapeutic point of view to use blood glucose for therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Further systematic and structured evaluation as to whether the use of ISF glucose is more safe and efficient when it comes to acute therapeutic decisions is necessary. These data might also have a higher prognostic relevance when it comes to long-term metabolic consequences of diabetes. In the long run, it may be reasonable to abandon blood glucose measurements as the basis for diabetes management and switch to using ISF glucose as the appropriate therapeutic target.
BACKGROUND: For decades, the major source of information used to make therapeutic decisions by patients with diabetes has been glucose measurements using capillary blood samples. Knowledge gained from clinical studies, for example, on the impact of metabolic control on diabetes-related complications, is based on such measurements. Different to traditional blood glucose measurement systems, systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measure glucose in interstitial fluid (ISF). The assumption is that glucose levels in blood and ISF are practically the same and that the information provided can be used interchangeably. Thus, therapeutic decisions, that is, the selection of insulin doses, are based on CGM system results interpreted as though they were blood glucose values. METHODS: We performed a more detailed analysis and interpretation of glucose profiles obtained with CGM in situations with high glucose dynamics to evaluate this potentially misleading assumption. RESULTS: Considering physical activity, hypoglycemic episodes, and meal-related differences between glucose levels in blood and ISF uncover clinically relevant differences that can make it risky from a therapeutic point of view to use blood glucose for therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Further systematic and structured evaluation as to whether the use of ISF glucose is more safe and efficient when it comes to acute therapeutic decisions is necessary. These data might also have a higher prognostic relevance when it comes to long-term metabolic consequences of diabetes. In the long run, it may be reasonable to abandon blood glucose measurements as the basis for diabetes management and switch to using ISF glucose as the appropriate therapeutic target.
Authors: Florian Reiterer; Philipp Polterauer; Michael Schoemaker; Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Luigi Del Re Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-09-25
Authors: John R Petrie; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Reinhard W Holl; G Alexander Fleming; Lutz Heinemann Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Yao Wu; Farshad Tehrani; Hazhir Teymourian; John Mack; Alexander Shaver; Maria Reynoso; Jonathan Kavner; Nickey Huang; Allison Furmidge; Andrés Duvvuri; Yuhang Nie; Lori M Laffel; Francis J Doyle; Mary-Elizabeth Patti; Eyal Dassau; Joseph Wang; Netzahualcóyotl Arroyo-Currás Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 8.008
Authors: Nancy Elbarbary; Othmar Moser; Saif Al Yaarubi; Hussain Alsaffar; Adnan Al Shaikh; Ramzi A Ajjan; Asma Deeb Journal: Diab Vasc Dis Res Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.291