4.7 Review

How can we monitor glycaemic variability in the clinical setting?

Journal

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages 13-16

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12142

Keywords

continuous glucose monitoring; glycaemic variability; self-monitoring of blood glucose; type 1 diabetes; type 2 diabetes

Funding

  1. Bristol Meyers Squibb
  2. Eli Lilly
  3. Merck Sharp and Dohme
  4. Novartis
  5. Novo Nordisk
  6. Sanofi Aventis
  7. Takeda
  8. Abbott
  9. Bayer
  10. Chiesi Farmaceutici
  11. ForFarma
  12. Johnson & Johnson Medical
  13. Roche Diagnostics
  14. Rottapharm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

No universal consensus exists on how to express glycaemic variability. Among other parameters, standard deviation of blood glucose values, mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE), the Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI) and the High Blood Glucose Index (HBGI), which were subsequently combined into the Average Daily Risk Range (ADRR), mean of daily differences (MODD) and glycaemic variability index (GVI) are highlighted. The continuous glucose monitoring in research and clinical settings has been a great help for a comprehensive approach to circadian blood glucose evaluation and identification of individual patterns, mainly in type 1 diabetes, but recently also in type 2 diabetes. In everyday clinical practice the judicious use of self-monitoring of blood glucose in an educational setting involving the patient and the care team is an unreplaceable tool to effectively and safely guide behavioural and drug therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available