Diabetes care groups have issued consensus recommendations on the targets for blood glucose results.1,2 The joint ADA/EASD guidelines emphasize the need to personalize glucose targets to meet individual circumstances and treatment goals. 3 The advent of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was heralded as a significant step to enable people with diabetes to achieve improvements in glycemic control. However, there are several barriers that limit the effective use of SMBG, including lack of patient understanding about when to perform testing, how to identify and interpret glucose results, and how to respond to abnormal glucose values. 4 A recent study in 207 non-insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) investigated perceptions of high blood glucose results and demonstrated patients were tolerant of higher blood glucose levels than are clinically advisable, perhaps because they do not recognize or interpret such values as being high. The authors concluded that along with performing SMBG, patients need education on appropriate blood glucose target levels and that this information needs to be reinforced over time. 5 In another recent survey of 886 US patients with T2DM, 56% did not respond regularly to out-of-range glucose readings with any self-care adjustments.6 Furthermore, 2 UK-based qualitative studies Aims: The ability of patients to achieve glycemic control depends in part on their ability to interpret and act on blood glucose (BG) results. This clinical study was conducted to determine if a simple on-meter color range indicator (CRI) could improve the ability of patients to categorize BG values into low, in-range, and high glycemic ranges.
Methods:The clinical study was conducted in 59 subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Subjects classified 50 general, 15 before-and 15 after-meal BG values as low, in-range, or high based on their current knowledge. Subjects then interactively experienced the on-meter CRI, which showed whether alternate BG values were low, in-range, or high. After CRI interaction, subjects repeated the original scoring assessment followed by a survey exploring their awareness of glucose ranges.
Results:Following interaction with the CRI, subjects improved their ability to categorize general, before-meal and aftermeal BG results by 23.4% ± 3.0% (SEM), 14.2% ± 2.4%, and 16.1% ± 2.9%, respectively (all P < .001), into low, in-range, and high glycemic ranges. Improvement was not accompanied by an increase in time spent categorizing results. There was no correlation between subject HbA1c, test frequency, or duration of diabetes and ability to correctly classify results. Subjects agreed the CRI feature helped them easily interpret glucose values and improved their awareness of glucose ranges.
Conclusion:A short interactive session with a meter including a CRI feature improved the ability of T2DM subjects to interpret and categorize BG values into recommended ranges.