Position statements

Self-monitoring of blood glucose

People with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes should have access to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) based on individual clinical need, type of diabetes, personal circumstances and informed consent - not on ability to pay. 95 per cent of diabetes care is self-care. As such, self-monitoring supported by education, is essential to inform the day-to-day lifestyle and treatment choices of individuals, as part of an integrated management strategy. Decisions about the type and frequency of self-monitoring should be made on a case-by-case basis and not on blanket decisions and removal of strips from prescriptions.

Diabetes is a life-long condition, and can have a profound impact on lifestyle, relationships, work, income, health, wellbeing and life expectancy. Clinical trials have demonstrated the value of tight glycaemic control to reduce the risk of costly and life threatening complications (1-7). Prolonged raised blood glucose levels are extremely detrimental to health, as it is associated with increased risk of heart disease, strokes, blindness, amputations and kidney disease (8-10).

National guidelines and frameworks set the standards of care that people with diabetes should expect and prioritise information, education, training and support to enable people to manage their diabetes themselves (11-19).  SMBG,  by blood and/or urine testing, combined with education, provides information for people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes to make day-to-day decisions about food, physical activity and treatment to maintain optimum control of blood glucose.

The debate

It is generally recognised that routine SMBG is beneficial, when supported with education, for all people with Type 1 diabetes and those with Type 2 diabetes using insulin (12,18-21). The debate largely focuses on the clinical and cost effectiveness of SMBG for people with non-insulin treated diabetes (22,23,24 ).

The Health Technology Assessment Review (25) was not supportive of SMBG, owing to a lack of evidence for clinical or cost effectiveness, particularly in relation to those with Type 2 diabetes. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for Type 2 diabetes state that self-monitoring be used as part of an integrated package of care in conjunction with appropriate therapy and education (13,12). The guidelines focus on the use of HbA1c to give a picture of overall control and for that control to be stable. It is however difficult to make recommendations and take action on treatment and lifestyle adjustment, without at least some form of home monitoring. To use the guideline as a basis to restrict access is a misinterpretation and was not the intention of the Guideline Development Group.

Current evidence is either lacking or contradictory. It can be argued that this is due to the limitations of the trials undertaken to date and the lack of focus on patient preferences. Sound evidence is needed to review all the factors contributing to optimum blood glucose management and its relationship to and with self-monitoring over time. This needs to include effects of education, actions taken by those self-monitoring, motivation, behaviour change, and patient related outcomes such as quality of life, well-being and satisfaction (26). The current lack of evidence does not mean that SMBG is not effective for those not treated by insulin, it just means that there is no evidence. Research commissioned by Diabetes UK, and others, is in progress.

Costs and benefits

In 2001 the UK spent approximately £90 million on self-blood glucose monitoring (27). It has been cited that more is spent on testing strips than on oral glycaemic agents. The implication being that this is not a good use of resources. This does not consider that for some people with diabetes, being able to monitor blood glucose levels may be as beneficial to them as taking the medication. In order not to waste resources it is important that people with diabetes are able to utilise self-monitoring effectively through diabetes education. Without the education to know when and how to test, and what to do with the results, there is little point in self-monitoring.  It is short-sighted to look to reducing costs through restrictive policies that prevent people from having the information they need to self-care. This is likely to result in increased prevalence of complications, costs to society and individuals themselves.

Considerable cost savings and improvements in quality of life are to be made from supporting people with diabetes to self care, in line with health policy, including improved health and well-being, prevention of unnecessary hospital admissions, and reduced frequency of support from the NHS (28). People with diabetes do generally take on board the issues of cost and should use blood glucose testing responsibly and appropriately. Evidence has shown that SMBG is beneficial to, and valued by, people with diabetes to:

  • enable better management of short and longer term metabolic control (12, 23,29-35)  assisting in the prevention of short and long term complications (36)
  • monitor effectiveness of medication, eating and physical activity on blood glucose levels (35-38, 43)
  • help to maintain or improve motivation for managing diabetes (38,43)
  • provide reassurance and reducing anxiety and fear of hypoglycaemia (30,37)
  • improve feelings of confidence and control over their own diabetes (30,37).

Local restrictions

An increasing number of people with diabetes are reporting restrictions or denial of blood glucose testing equipment causing distress and anger among those who rely on these tools to self-manage their diabetes (39). 27 per cent of PCTs in England (40) report the existence of a policy restricting the provision of blood glucose test strips for people with diabetes.

Actions

  • Decisions about blood glucose monitoring should be made on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket removal of strips from prescriptions or local restrictive policies. Local guidelines should be in place to encourage healthcare professionals to work in partnership with individuals with diabetes to inform them of the role that SMBG plays in self-management.
  • Increased awareness is needed of the importance of people with diabetes being able to access appropriate tools and support to manage their own diabetes.
  • Diabetes care teams should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of monitoring either by blood or urine, at diagnosis to enable people with diabetes to make informed choices. Those choosing to monitor their blood glucose should do so as part of an integrated package of care as defined in national guidelines.
  • Training and education should be provided about testing methods, how to interpret results and how to use results to adapt diet, lifestyle and medication to achieve optimum control (41-43). Methods and frequency of testing should be jointly agreed between the person with diabetes and healthcare professional through care planning. Any changes or reviews must only be made through discussion with, and agreement of, the person with diabetes.

This position should be interpreted as the basis upon which discussions are initiated about whether a person with diabetes wishes to or should monitor their blood glucose levels. The decision should be jointly agreed between the person with diabetes and their own healthcare team.

For further information see Diabetes UK Care Recommendation - 'Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose' September 2006 or please contact the policy team at policy@diabetes.org.uk.

December 2006

References

  1. DDCT Research Group.  The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in IDDM.  The New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329: 977-986
  2. Diabetes Education Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2003.  Type 2 diabetes patient education basics.  Blood glucose monitoring: a must in diabetes management
  3. UKPDS33:  Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with Type 2 diabetes.  Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853
  4. UKPDS34:  Effect of intensive blood glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with Type 2 diabetes.  Lancet 1998; 352: 854-865
  5. UKPDS38: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in Type 2 diabetes.  BMJ 1998; 317: 703-713  
  6. UKPDS39: Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in Type 2 diabetes.  BMJ 1998; 717: 713-720
  7. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). 13. Relative efficacy of diet, sulphonylurea, insulin, or metformin therapy in patients with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes followed for three years.  BMJ 1995; 310: 83-88
  8. Hyperglycaemia and diabetes mellitus. Jarrett RJ, Keen H. Lancet (1976) ii: 1009-1012
  9. Development of retinopathy and proteinuria in relation to plasma glucose concentration in Pima Indians. Pettitt DJ, Knowler WC, Lisse JR, Bennett PH. Lancet (1980) ii: 1050-1052
  10. Coronary-heart-disease risk and impaired glucose tolerance. The Whitehall study. Fuller JH, Shipley MJ, Rose G, Jarrett RJ, Keen H. Lancet (1980) i: 1373-1376
  11. Guidance on  the use of patient-education models for diabetes, Health Technology Appraisal, May 2003, National Institute for Clincial Excellence: Available at www.nice.org.uk
  12. Guideline for Type 2 diabetes – management of blood glucose, September 2002, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available at www.nice.org.uk
  13. McIntosh A, Hutchinson A, Home PD, Brown F, Bruce A, Damerell A, Davis R, Field R, Frost G, Marshall S, Roddick J, Tesfaye S, Withers H, Suckling R, Smith S, Griffin S, Kaltenthaler E, Peters J, Feder G (2001) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for Type 2 diabetes: management of blood glucose. Sheffield: ScHARR, University of Sheffield
  14. National Service Framework for Diabetes: Standards, Department of Health, London. December 2001, available at: www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/diabetes.htm
  15. National Service Framework for Diabetes; Standards, Welsh Assembly Government. 2003
  16. Scottish Diabetes Framework. Scottish Executive. 2002
  17. Report of the Northern Ireland Taskforce on diabetes. A blue print of diabetes care in Northern Ireland in the 21st century. CREST and Diabetes UK. 2003
  18. NICE Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults. Guideline Number 15. July 2004
  19. National Diabetes Support Team Factsheet No.1. Glucose self-monitoring. November 2003.
  20. International Diabetes Federation 2005.  Clinical guidelines Task Force, Global guidelines for Type 2 diabetes.  2005 Chapter 8 –self monitoring (www.idf.org)
  21. American Diabetes Association. Glycaemic control : Self-monitoring of blood glucose Recommendations. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2006.
  22. Welschen LM et al.  Self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with Type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin: a systematic review.  Diabetes Care 2005; 28(6): 1510-7
  23. Franciosi M, Pellegrini F, De Barardis G et al. AuED Study Group – Quality of Care and Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated diabetic patients: a longitudinal evaluation of its impact on metabolic control. Diabetic Medicine. 22(7) July 2005: 900-6
  24. Rebecca M Reynolds & David J Webb, Recommendations and Conclusions from a Mini-Symposium onSelf - Blood Glucose Monitoring (SBGM),Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. On behad of the Symposium Committee of the Royal College of Physicians. November 2004
  25. Coster S, Gulliford MC, Seed PT et al. Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2000:4(12). Available at www.ncchta.org
  26. Jarvis S.  Self monitoring of blood glucose: is it worth it?  The British Journal of Diabetes and Vascular Disease 2005; 5(5): 245-246 
  27. Hoffman R et al.  Evaluating once- and twice -daily self monitored blood glucose testing strategies for stable insulin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes.  Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1744-1748  
  28. Supporting people with long term conditions to self care: A guide to developing strategies and good practice. Department of Health. 2006
  29. Ranciosi M et al.  The impact of blood glucose self-monitoring on metabolic control and quality of life in Type 2 diabetic patients: an urgent need for better educational strategies.  Diabetes Care 2001; 24(11): 1870-7
  30. Murata GH et al.  Intensified blood glucose monitoring improves glycaemic control in stable, insulin treated veterans with Type 2 diabetes: The Diabetes outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES).  Diabetes Care 2003; 26(6): 1759-63
  31. Guerin B et al.  Self monitoring of blood glucose significantly improves metabolic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Auto-Surveillance Intervention Active (ASIA) study.  Diabetes Metab 2003; 29: 587-94
  32. Bandolier 134.  Independent evidence based thinking about healthcare.  April 2005; 12(4) www.bandolier.com 
  33. Sarol JN et al.  Self monitoring of blood glucose as part of a multi-component therapy among non-insulin requiring Type 2 diabetes patients: a meta analysis (1966-2004).  Current medical and research opinion 2005; 21(2): 173-84
  34. Guerci B, drouin P, Grange V et al. self monitoring of blood glucose significantly improves metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: The Auto-Surveillance Intervention Active (ASIA) study. Diabetes Metab. 29, 2003: 587-94
  35. Jansen JP. Self-monitoring of glucose in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian meta-analysis of direct and indirect comparisons. Current Medical research & Opionin 22(4). April 2006: 671-81
  36. Martin S, Schneider B, Heninemann L et al. Self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in type 2 diabetes and long term outcome: an epidemiological cohort study . Diabetologia. 49(2):Feb 2006: 271-8
  37. Williams P.  Put to the test.  Diabetes Update (Summer) 2004; 30-33
  38. Wu HI, A case study of type 2 diabetes self-management. Biomedical Engineering Online 4(1):2005.
  39. Policy Report. Reported restrictions of accessing blood glucose monitoring. 2004.
  40. Your Local Care. Diabetes Services in England. Research by Diabetes UK and Dr Foster. 2005
  41. Ozmen B and Boyvada S.  The relationship between self-monitoring of blood glucose control and glycosylated  haemoglobin in patients with Type 2 diabetes with and without diabetic retinopathy.  Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2003; 17: 128-134
  42. Farmer A et al.  The DiGEM trial protocol- a randomised controlled trial to determine the effect on glycaemic control of different strategies of blood glucose self-monitoring in people with Type 2 diabetes.  BMC Family Practice 2005; 6(25)
  43. Peel E et al.  Blood glucose self-monitoring in non-insulin treated Type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patients’ perspectives.  British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54(500): 183-8 

(Diabetes UK is not responsible for the content of external websites.)