Kontinuierliches Glukosemonitoring im Erleben des individuellen Patienten

T. Kubiak; C. G. Mann; L. Heinemann

doi:10.1055/s-0034-1399028

Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2015; 10(01): 29-35
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399028

Originalarbeit

Kontinuierliches Glukosemonitoring im Erleben des individuellen Patienten

Continous Glucose Monitoring by the Experience of the individual Patient

T. Kubiak

¹Gesundheitspsychologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

,

C. G. Mann

¹Gesundheitspsychologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

,

L. Heinemann

²Science & Co, Düsseldorf

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Patientensysteme zum kontinuierlichen Glukosemonitoring (CGM) liefern den Patienten wertvolle Information über Glukoseverläufe und -trends und haben prinzipiell das Potenzial, die Diabetes(selbst)behandlung deutlich zu verbessern. Zahlreiche empirische Befunde aus klinischen Studien belegen die Effektivität von CGM. Allerdings zeigt sich auch, dass die Effektivität von Patient zu Patient stark variieren kann und nicht alle Patienten die Informationen, die CGM liefert, optimal für die Diabetesbehandlung nutzen. Ausgehend von einem systematischen Überblick über die bestehende Befundlage, werden in diesem Beitrag psychosoziale und Verhaltensfaktoren diskutiert, die mit beeinflussen können, ob eine Therapie mit CGM erfolgreich ist. Desiderata für die zukünftige Forschung und den Einsatz von CGM in der klinischen Praxis werden abgeleitet.

Abstract

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) patients systems provide the patient with valuable real-time information on glucose trajectories and trends offering opportunities for considerably improving diabetes self-management. Ample evidence from clinical trials underscores CGM effectiveness. However, interindividual variability is substantial: Not all patients benefit from CGM in their diabetes self-management in an optimal fashion. In this article, we provide a systematic overview of existing evidence and discuss psychosocial and behavioral factors that may impact CGM effectiveness. Gaps in existing research are identified and directions for future studies and CGM in clinical diabetes care are proposed.

Schlüsselwörter

Kontinuierliches Glukosemonitoring (CGM) - Glukoseverläufe - Glukosetrends - Diabetes(selbst)behandlung

Key words

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) - glucose trajectories - glucose trends - diabetes self-management

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 Heinemann L, Siegmund T. Kontinuierliche Glukosemessung bei Erwachsenen. Der Diabetologe 2013; 9: 647-656
2 Danne T et al. The PILGRIM study: in silico modeling of a predictive low glucose management system and feasibility in youth with type 1 diabetes during exercise. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2014; 16: 338-347
3 Ly TT, Nicholas JA, Retterath A et al. Effect of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and automated insulin suspension vs standard insulin pump therapy on hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 diabetes. JAMA 2013; 12: 1240-1247
4 Pichert JW, Campbell K, Cox DJ et al. Issues for the coming age of continuous glucose monitoring. The Diabetes Educator 2000; 26: 969-980
5 Klonoff DC. Continuous glucose monitoring: roadmap for 21^st century diabetes therapy. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 1231-1239
6 Liebl A, Henrichs HR, Heinemann L et al. Kontinuierliches Glukosemonitoring (CGM): Evidenz und Konsens für den klinischen Einsatz von CGM. Diabetes, Stoffwechsel und Herz 2012; 21: 32-47
7 Clery D. A pancreas in a box. Science AAAS 2014; 343: 133-135
8 Wagner J, Tennen H, Wolpert H. Continuous glucose monitoring: A review for behavioral researchers. Psychosomatic Medicine 2012; 74: 356-365
9 Deiss D, Bolinder J, Riveline JP et al. Improved glycemic control in poorly controlled patients with Type 1 diabetes using real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2730-2732
10 Raccah D, Sulmont V, Reznik Y et al. Incremental value of continuous glucose monitoring when starting pump therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: the RealTrend study. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 2245-2250
11 O'Connell MA, Donath S, O'Neal DN et al. Glycaemic impact of patient-led use of sensor-guided pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2009; 52: 1250-1257
12 Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ 2011; 343: 1-14
13 Heinemann L, DeVries JH. Evidence for continuous glucose monitoring: sufficient for reimbursement?. Diabetic Medicine 2013; 31: 122-125
14 Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in a clinical care environment: Evidence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring (JDRF-CGM) trial. Diabetes Care 2009; 33: 17-22
15 Scaramuzza AE, Iafusco D, Rabbone I et al. Use of integrated real-time continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a 3-year follow-up study. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2011; 13: 99-103
16 Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: 795-800
17 Damiano ER, El-Khatib FH, Zheng H et al. Comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors. Diabetes Care 2013; 36: 251-259
18 Damiano ER, McKeon K, El-Khatib FH et al. Comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors: The Navigator, G4 Platinum, and Enlite. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2014; Epub ahead of print http://dst.sagepub.com/content/8/4/699 Zugriff vom 21.04.2014.
19 Food and Drug Aministration. Guidance for the industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
20 Lee JM, Rhee K, O'grady MJ et al. Health utilities for children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Med Care 2011; 49: 924-931
21 Riveline JP. Is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for everyone? To whom should CGM be prescribed and how?. Diabetes and Metabolism 2011; 37: 80-84
22 Markowitz JT, Pratt K, Aggarwal J et al. Psychosocial correlates of continuous glucose monitoring use in youth and adults with Type 1 diabetes and parents of youth. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2012; 14: 523-526
23 Husted GR, Thorsteinsson B, Esbensen BA et al. Improving glycaemic control and life skills in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A randomised, controlled intervention study using the Guided Self-Determination-Young method in triads of adolescents, parents and health care providers integrated into routine paediatric outpatient clinics. BMC pediatrics 2011; 11: 55-67
24 Polonsky WH, Hessler D. What are the quality of life-related benefits and losses associated with real-time continuous glucose monitoring? A survey of current users. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2013; 15: 295-301
25 Kubiak T, Stone AA (Eds.) Special issue ambulatory monitoring. Psychosomatic Medicine 2012; 74
26 Ritholz MD, Atakov-Castillo A, Beste M et al. Psychosocial factors associated with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetic Medicine 2010; 27: 1060-1065
27 Ritholz MD, Beste M, Edwards SS et al. Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on diabetes management and marital relationships of adults with Type 1 diabetes and their spouses: a qualitative study. Diabetic Medicine 2013; 31: 47-54
28 Tansey M, Laffel L, Cheng J et al. Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 2011; 28: 1118-1122
29 Schade DS, Wolpert H. To pump or not to pump. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2005; 7: 845-848
30 Pickup J, Kidd J, Burmiston S et al. Determinants of glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during intensified therapy with multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: importance of blood glucose variability. Diabetes Metabolism Research and Reviews 2006; 22: 232-237
31 Nixon R, Pickup JC. Fear of hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes managed by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion: is it associated with poor glycemic control?. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2011; 13: 93-98
32 Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Allen JM et al. Closing the loop overnight at home setting: psychosocial impact for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care 2014; 2: 1-7
33 Hommel E, Olsen B, Battelino T et al. Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and use of medical care resources: analyses from the SWITCH study. Acta diabetologica 2014; Epub ahead of print http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00592-014-0598-7 Zugriff vom 19.07.2014
34 Walker TC, Yucha CB. Continuous glucose monitors use of waveform versus glycemic values in the improvements of glucose control, quality of life, and fear of hypoglycemia. Epub ahead of print Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2014; http://dst.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/22/1932296814528434 Zugriff vom 22.03.2014.
35 Kordonouri O, Pankowska E, Rami B et al. Sensor-augmented pump therapy from the diagnosis of childhood type 1 diabetes: results of the Paediatric Onset Study (ONSET) after 12 months of treatment. Diabetologia 2010; 53: 2487-2495
36 Riveline JP, Schaepelynck P, Chaillous L et al. Assessment of Patient-Led or Physician-Driven Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Using Basal-Bolus Insulin Regiments. A 1-year multicenter study. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 965-971
37 Barnard KD, Kubiak T, Hermanns N et al. Patient Reported Outcomes and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Can We Do Better With Artificial Pancreas Devices?. [letter]. Diabetes Care in press.