The use of real time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes: A consensus view of Italian diabetes experts using the Delphi method

TLDR: A consensus amongst Italian diabetes physicians on the attributes of rtCGM and FGM technologies is delineated, and a consistent approach for their use by Italian healthcare professionals is introduced to increase the efficacy and effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in Italy.

Abstract: Until recently, in Italy, the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has been limited, but is now rapidly increasing, including the so-called real-time CGM (rtCGM) and the intermittently viewed CGM (iCGM), also called Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM). These technologies overcome many of the limitations of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) by fingerprick and allow to go beyond HbA1c to check glucose control in diabetes. However, standardized protocols for applying and interpreting rtCGM and FGM data are lacking. In this paper, we delineate a consensus amongst Italian diabetes physicians on the attributes of rtCGM and FGM technologies, and introduce a consistent approach for their use by Italian healthcare professionals. Most experts consider rtCGM and FGM as two separate categories of interstitial subcutaneous fluid (ISF) sensing technologies, and see them as superior to SMBG. Furthermore, there is strong consensus that rtCGM and FGM reduce hypoglycemia risk, increase the amount of time in the target glucose range and augment treatment satisfaction. However, there is still no agreement on the indication of the FGM for subjects who suffer asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Consensus on the role of education in initiating and optimizing use of rtCGM/FGM and about the interpretation of glucose trends was near unanimous, whereas no consensus was reached on the statement that there are no disadvantages/risks of rtCGM/FGM. Some issues remain in rtCGM/FGM management: a) risk of excessive correction of high or low glucose; b) risk of alert fatigue leading to alert silencing or rtCGM termination; c) allergic reaction to the adhesive keeping rtCGM or FGM sensors in place. The panel almost unanimously agreed that sensor accuracy depends on multiple variables, that alarm setting should be individualized, and that global glycemic profile represent an useful tool in interpreting glucose data. More clinical studies and a wider use of these devices will increase the efficacy and effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in Italy.