Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diabetes Care. 2017 Dec;40(12):1631-1640. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1600.

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Author information

1
Diabetes Centre for Children and Adolescents, Children's and Youth Hospital "Auf Der Bult," Hannover, Germany danne@hka.de.
2
The Myrtle and Henry Hirsch National Center for Childhood Diabetes, The Jesse and Sara Lea Shafer Institute of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petah Tikva, Israel.
3
Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, University Children's Hospital, Ljubljana University Medical Centre, and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
4
International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, MN.
5
Close Concerns, San Francisco, CA.
6
Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
7
University of Colorado Denver and Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Aurora, CO.
8
Science & Co, Düsseldorf, Germany.
9
Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
10
Diabetes Research Group, King's College London, London, U.K.
11
Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.
12
Diabetes Research Institute, University "Vita-Salute" San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
13
Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
14
Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
15
John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
16
Academic Unit of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Metabolism, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K.
17
Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science and Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.
18
Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Diabetes Institute, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Diabetes Mellitus, Shanghai Clinical Center of Diabetes, Shanghai, China.
19
Telethon Kids Institute and School of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Western Australia, and Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Australia.
20
Diabetes Centre for Children and Adolescents, Children's and Youth Hospital "Auf Der Bult," Hannover, Germany.
21
Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA.
22
JDRF, New York, NY.
23
Pediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Section and Section on Clinical, Behavioral and Outcomes Research, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
24
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
25
Department of Endocrinology, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
26
CGParkin Communications, Boulder City, NV.
27
Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, Montpellier University Hospital, and Institute of Functional Genomics, University of Montpellier, and INSERM Clinical Investigation Centre, Montpellier, France.
28
DiaCare, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
29
Centro de Diabetes Curitiba and Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Hospital Nossa Senhora das Graças, Curitiba, Brazil.
30
Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.

Abstract

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.

PMID:
29162583
PMCID:
PMC6467165
DOI:
10.2337/dc17-1600
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center