Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is universally considered to be an integral part of type 1 diabetes management and crucial for optimizing the safety and efficacy of complex insulin regimens. This extends to type 2 diabetes patients on intensive insulin therapy, and there is also a growing body of evidence suggesting that structured SMBG is beneficial for all type 2 diabetes patients, regardless of therapy. However, access to SMBG can be limited in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. A consensus group of diabetes experts from 10 countries in this region (with overlapping historical, political, and social environments)-Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine-was formed to discuss the role of SMBG across the spectrum of patients with diabetes. The group considered SMBG to be an essential tool that should be accessible to all patients with diabetes, including those with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The current article summarizes the evidence put forward by the consensus group and provides their recommendations for the appropriate use of SMBG as part of individualized patient management. The ultimate goal of these evidence-based recommendations is to help patients and providers in Central and Eastern Europe to make optimal use of SMBG in order to maximize the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering therapies, to prevent complications, and to empower the patient to play a more active role in the management of their diabetes.

Patients with T1D and T2D may be switched from IGlarg to qd IDet as part of a basal-bolus regimen.

In this open-label, prospective, observational study, insulin detemir basal-bolus therapy improved glycaemic control and reduced hypoglycaemia with weight neutrality in type 1 patients in actual clinical practice.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most significant prognostic factor in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, a significant number of individuals may develop CVD that does not present with the classic angina-related or heart failure symptoms. In these cases, CVD may seem to be ‘silent’ or ‘asymptomatic’, but may be more accurately characterised as unrecognised diabetic cardiac impairment. An initial step to raise awareness of unrecognised CVD in individuals with T2D would be to reach a consensus regarding the terminology used to describe this phenomenon. By standardising the terminologies, and agreeing on the implementation of an efficient screening program, it is anticipated that patients will receive an earlier diagnosis and appropriate and timely treatment. Given the availability of anti-diabetic medications that have been shown to concomitantly reduce CV risk and mortality, it is imperative to improve early identification and initiate treatment as soon as possible in order to enable as many patients with T2D as possible to benefit.