CHAPTER 3 GLYCAEMIC CONTROL
OVERVIEW
To achieve and maintain the targets (Table 3.1) of optimal glycaemic control can be difficult because of the progressive deterioration of pancreatic insulin secretion. Success is more likely if the patient, in collaboration with the professional and guided by monitoring of glycaemic control, masters the complex task of balancing the three key components of diet, physical activity and blood glucose-lowering medication dosage.
Target | Who monitors | Action |
---|---|---|
Avoiding hypoglycaemia | Patient | Recognises warning signs |
Balances regular meals, correct dose of therapy and physical activity | ||
Able to correct promptly | ||
Professional | Assesses needs and educates | |
Fasting blood glucose of 4 to 7 mmol/l | Patient | Able to do and interpret tests |
Adjusts therapy accordingly | ||
Professional | Assesses needs and educates | |
Glycated haemoglobin of less than 7.0%* | Patient | Understands significance of test result |
Adjusts therapy accordingly | ||
Professional | Repeats regularly | |
Advises on appropriate therapy changes |
* Individualised HbA1c targets should be set between 6.5 and 7.5%; the lower value is preferred for patients at significant risk of vascular complications, the higher may be more appropriate for those with limited life expectancy or at risk of iatrogenic hypoglycaemia
This chapter discusses self-monitoring and blood glucose-lowering medication. Diet and physical activity are discussed in Chapter 2.
MONITORING
Glycaemic control can be assessed in three complementary ways:
GLYCOSYLATED HAEMOGLOBIN (OR FRUCTOSAMINE)
Glycosylated haemoglobin, or HbA1c, is formed by the non-enzymatic glycation of part of the β-chain of haemoglobin. HbA1c levels correlate to the mean plasma glucose over the preceding 9–10 weeks. The relationship between HbA1c and mean plasma glucose levels is shown in Table 3.2. A recent HbA1c result should normally be available at the full periodic review. HbA1c should be checked more frequently when control is poor or glycaemic management has been altered. The estimation of HbA1c requires expensive equipment and stringent quality control: it is generally not feasible in primary care and is best done by a hospital laboratory.
HbA1c (%) | Mean plasma glucose level (mmol/l) |
---|---|
6 | 7.5 |
7 | 9.5 |
8 | 11.5 |
9 | 13.5 |
10 | 15.5 |
11 | 17.5 |
12 | 19.5 |
PATIENT SELF-MONITORING
Urine testing
Testing urine for the presence of glucose using test strips, such as Diabur-Test 5000, is non-invasive, inexpensive and may be preferred by patients who dislike blood testing, although there is some recent evidence that patients with type 2 diabetes can have negative perceptions about urine testing (Lawton 2004).
However, urine glucose testing has two main drawbacks:
Blood testing
Many varieties of finger-pricking lancets, blood glucose machines and test strips or sensors are now available, but only the lancets and strips/sensors can be prescribed on the NHS. Each different make of blood glucose machine has its own unique test strips. The current issue of the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) lists each make of test strip and the machine(s) with which it is compatible. There have been significant technical advances in machines, with sensors allowing the blood drop to be analysed outside the machine. A rigorous evaluation of the different blood glucose meters and lancing devices now available on the UK market was published in 2005 by the Department of Health’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (details can be downloaded from its website, www.mhra.gov.uk). This useful source should assist in selecting the most suitable machine or device. Recently the MHRA has identified a safety problem with some blood glucose meters, where units of measurement may change and mislead the user.
Most official guidance and Diabetes UK advocate regular home blood glucose monitoring, even in type 2 diabetics, but there is not yet a clear consensus on how frequently to test. The latest ADA guidelines recommend 2 to 3 times daily in patients with type 1 diabetes, but possibly more often in patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin (ADA 2007). However, an editorial in the British Medical Journal challenged the conventional advice given about frequency of testing; it suggested that regular monitoring is not always necessary and that properly conducted large-scale studies need to be done to determine whether more frequent testing will improve glycaemic control (Reynolds 2004). It is sensible to test more frequently if control is poor or if the patient is unwell.
BLOOD GLUCOSE-LOWERING MEDICATION
A stepped approach to achieving and maintaining metabolic control is sensible. Starting with lifestyle changes and the early introduction of monotherapy, it moves progressively onto logical and effective combinations of different agents if the HbA1c remains greater than 7.0%. This is summarised in Table 3.3, with more than one option at some numbered steps, choice depending upon the clinical circumstances and patient preference (ADA 2007). It is the authors’ personal view that, in primary care, basal insulin is best introduced only when maximal oral therapy (including triple therapy, if feasible) cannot achieve good metabolic control.
At each numbered step, letter “a” is first choice option, subject to drug contraindications, clinical circumstances and patient preference. | ||
---|---|---|
Step | Evaluation | Intervention |
1 | HbA1c <7.0% | Lifestyle advice (diet and physical activity) |
2a |
* Of the two glitazones, only pioglitazone currently has a licence to be prescribed in combination with insulin.
INSULIN SECRETAGOGUES (DRUGS THAT IMPROVE INSULIN SECRETION)
Currently, there are two main groups of drugs that increase insulin secretion:
NICE’s Clinical Guidelines in 2002 recommended that “a generic sulphonylurea should normally be the insulin secretagogue of choice” (NICE 2002).
Sulphonylureas
The different sulphonylureas appear to have a comparable effect upon blood glucose-lowering, but with different durations of action. Although both once-daily and twice-daily dosing are associated with better concordance, once-daily preparations have the advantages of reducing the total number of tablets that a patient needs to take and of potentially simplifying the drug regimen.
The two main drawbacks associated with sulphonylureas are that they can induce hypoglycaemia and can encourage weight gain. Glibenclamide is associated with the rare but potentially fatal occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the elderly. Weight gain was recorded with both chlorpropamide and glibenclamide (but less than with insulin) in the intensively treated group of patients in the UKPDS (UKPDS 1998). However, hypoglycaemia and weight gain are not inevitable with sulphonylureas, and the risks of either occurring may be minimised by: