Evidence of patient self-testing at clinic review: association with glycaemic control

Authors

  • Martin B Whyte School of Biosciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
  • Chris A Manu Department of Diabetes, King’s College NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • David Hopkins Department of Diabetes, King’s College NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  • Stephen Thomas Department of Diabetes, Guy’s & St.Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15277/bjdvd.2015.015

Abstract

Aims: Home glucose testing and reflection on patterns are important elements of type 1 diabetes self-management. We hypothesised that patients who demonstrated evidence of self-testing by bringing a record book (capillary blood glucose monitoring diary) to clinic would have better glycaemic control than patients with a glucometer alone, or neither record book nor glucometer.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 233 consecutive type 1 diabetes patients using basal-bolus insulin. Exclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 1 diabetes within the previous year, current pregnancy, or prior inclusion in this study. We recorded the presence or absence of a record book or glucometer at the clinic, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and previous structured education attendance.

Results: Of 233 patients, 90 brought a record book, 61 brought a glucometer and 82 brought neither. Mean HbA1c did not differ between patients with a record book (63 ± 2 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.2%]) or glucometer (63 ± 2 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.2%]), but was higher in those with neither (77 ± 2 mmol/mol [9.2±0.2%]; p<0.001). Patients bringing a record book were older on average than those with a glucometer or neither (49.6 ± 1.7 vs. 41.2 ± 1.7 vs. 40.6 ± 1.4 years; p<0.001) and had longer mean duration of diabetes (27.9 ± 2.0 vs. 19.2 ± 1.7 vs. 18.7 ± 1.6 years; p<0.001). Prior structured education did not predict the presence of a record book or glucometer in the clinic.

Conclusions: Evidence of self-testing at clinic review, either as a record book or glucometer, was associated with improved control compared with those with neither. HbA1c did not differ between patients bringing a record book or glucometer. Self-reflection on glucose results is important for type 1 diabetes self-management, irrespective of the recording method used.

References

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Diagnosis and Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Children, Young People and Adults. Clinical Guideline 15. 2004.

Karter AJ, Ackerson LM, Darbinian JA, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels and glycemic control: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes registry. Am J Med 2001;111:1-9. 1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Diagnosis and Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Children, Young People and Adults. Clinical Guideline 15. 2004.

Karter AJ, Ackerson LM, Darbinian JA, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels and glycemic control: the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes registry. Am J Med 2001;111:1-9.

Simmons JH, Chen V, Miller KM, et al. Differences in the management of type 1 diabetes among adults under excellent control compared with those under poor control in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3573-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-2643

Schutt M, Kern W, Krause U, et al. Is the frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose related to long-term metabolic control? Multicenter analysis including 24,500 patients from 191 centers in Germany and Austria. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2006;114:84-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924152

Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al. Evidence of a strong association between frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels in T1D Exchange Clinic Registry participants. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2009-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-1770

Johansen MD, Gjerlov I, Christiansen JS, et al. Interindividual and intraindividual variations in postprandial glycemia peak time complicate precise recommendations for self-monitoring of glucose in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diab Sci Technol 2012;6:356-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/193229681200600221

Szypowska A, Ramotowska A, Dzygalo K, et al. Beneficial effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring system on glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Endocrinol 2012;166:567-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/EJE-11-0642

Stevens JC. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrene Erlbaum; 1992.

Clarke SF, Foster JR A history of blood glucose meters and their role in self-monitoring of diabetes mellitus. Br J Biomed Sci 2012;69:83-93.

Laffel LM, Hsu WC, McGill JB, et al. Continued use of an integrated meter with electronic logbook maintains improvements in glycemic control beyond a randomized, controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 2007;9 254-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2006.0021

Strowig SM, Raskin P. Improved glycemic control in intensively treated type 1 diabetic patients using blood glucose meters with storage capability and computer-assisted analyses. Diabetes Care 1998;21:1694-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.10.1694

Karter AJ, Ferrara A, Darbinian JA, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: language and financial barriers in a managed care population with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:477-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diacare.23.4.477

Downloads

Published

2015-06-08

Issue

Section

Learning from practice

Most read articles by the same author(s)