International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Richard M. Bergenstal; Kelly L. Close; J. Hans DeVries; Satish Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl Hirsch; Stephanie A. Amiel; Roy Beck; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce Buckingham; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; Francis J. Doyle; Simon Heller; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Tim Jones; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; David Maahs; Helen R. Murphy; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G. Parkin; Eric Renard; Banshi Saboo; Mauro Scharf; William V. Tamborlane; Stuart A. Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip

doi:https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Thomas Danne, Revital Nimri, Tadej Battelino, Richard M. Bergenstal, Kelly L. Close, J. Hans DeVries, Satish Garg, Lutz Heinemann, Irl Hirsch, Stephanie A. Amiel, Roy Beck, Emanuele Bosi, Bruce Buckingham, Claudio Cobelli, Eyal Dassau, Francis J. Doyle, Simon Heller, Roman Hovorka, Weiping Jia, Tim JonesOlga Kordonouri, Boris Kovatchev, Aaron Kowalski, Lori Laffel, David Maahs, Helen R. Murphy, Kirsten Nørgaard, Christopher G. Parkin, Eric Renard, Banshi Saboo, Mauro Scharf, William V. Tamborlane, Stuart A. Weinzimer, Moshe Phillip

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

1340 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 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 HbA(1c) testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA(1c) 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

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1631-1640
Journal	Diabetes Care
Volume	40
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600
Publication status	Published - 2017

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

Cite this

Danne, T., Nimri, R., Battelino, T., Bergenstal, R. M., Close, K. L., DeVries, J. H., Garg, S., Heinemann, L., Hirsch, I., Amiel, S. A., Beck, R., Bosi, E., Buckingham, B., Cobelli, C., Dassau, E., Doyle, F. J., Heller, S., Hovorka, R., Jia, W., ... Phillip, M. (2017). International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care, 40(12), 1631-1640. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

@article{12bf0e9e5dca48f1a480e270d853c74b,

title = "International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring",

abstract = "Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 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 HbA(1c) testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA(1c) 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",

author = "Thomas Danne and Revital Nimri and Tadej Battelino and Bergenstal, {Richard M.} and Close, {Kelly L.} and DeVries, {J. Hans} and Satish Garg and Lutz Heinemann and Irl Hirsch and Amiel, {Stephanie A.} and Roy Beck and Emanuele Bosi and Bruce Buckingham and Claudio Cobelli and Eyal Dassau and Doyle, {Francis J.} and Simon Heller and Roman Hovorka and Weiping Jia and Tim Jones and Olga Kordonouri and Boris Kovatchev and Aaron Kowalski and Lori Laffel and David Maahs and Murphy, {Helen R.} and Kirsten N{\o}rgaard and Parkin, {Christopher G.} and Eric Renard and Banshi Saboo and Mauro Scharf and Tamborlane, {William V.} and Weinzimer, {Stuart A.} and Moshe Phillip",

year = "2017",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600",

language = "English",

volume = "40",

pages = "1631--1640",

journal = "Diabetes Care",

issn = "0149-5992",

publisher = "American Diabetes Association Inc.",

number = "12",

}

Danne, T, Nimri, R, Battelino, T, Bergenstal, RM, Close, KL, DeVries, JH, Garg, S, Heinemann, L, Hirsch, I, Amiel, SA, Beck, R, Bosi, E, Buckingham, B, Cobelli, C, Dassau, E, Doyle, FJ, Heller, S, Hovorka, R, Jia, W, Jones, T, Kordonouri, O, Kovatchev, B, Kowalski, A, Laffel, L, Maahs, D, Murphy, HR, Nørgaard, K, Parkin, CG, Renard, E, Saboo, B, Scharf, M, Tamborlane, WV, Weinzimer, SA & Phillip, M 2017, 'International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring', Diabetes Care, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1631-1640. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

TY - JOUR

T1 - International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

AU - Danne, Thomas

AU - Nimri, Revital

AU - Battelino, Tadej

AU - Bergenstal, Richard M.

AU - Close, Kelly L.

AU - DeVries, J. Hans

AU - Garg, Satish

AU - Heinemann, Lutz

AU - Hirsch, Irl

AU - Amiel, Stephanie A.

AU - Beck, Roy

AU - Bosi, Emanuele

AU - Buckingham, Bruce

AU - Cobelli, Claudio

AU - Dassau, Eyal

AU - Doyle, Francis J.

AU - Heller, Simon

AU - Hovorka, Roman

AU - Jia, Weiping

AU - Jones, Tim

AU - Kordonouri, Olga

AU - Kovatchev, Boris

AU - Kowalski, Aaron

AU - Laffel, Lori

AU - Maahs, David

AU - Murphy, Helen R.

AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten

AU - Parkin, Christopher G.

AU - Renard, Eric

AU - Saboo, Banshi

AU - Scharf, Mauro

AU - Tamborlane, William V.

AU - Weinzimer, Stuart A.

AU - Phillip, Moshe

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 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 HbA(1c) testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA(1c) 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

AB - Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 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 HbA(1c) testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA(1c) 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

U2 - https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

DO - https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600

M3 - Article

C2 - 29162583

SN - 0149-5992

VL - 40

SP - 1631

EP - 1640

JO - Diabetes Care

JF - Diabetes Care

IS - 12

ER -