Ambulatory glucose profile (AGP): utility in UK clinical practice

Mark Evans, Iain Cranston, Clifford J Bailey


Glycaemic variability may contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes complications independently of the average level of blood glucose and increases the barriers to achieving such mean goals as well as the risk of hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has the potential to identify and address glycaemic variability. Achieving effective use of the extensive data generated by CGM within a routine diabetes consultation is challenging, particularly where glycaemic variability is high. Expert groups have called for more standardisation of the analysis and reporting of glycaemic data. The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) is an internationally recognised, consensus-approved visual representation which simply summarises glycaemic data and its descriptive statistics in a clinically meaningful format, thus providing a solution to this unmet need. The AGP collates and presents several days of glucose records in a single projection, presenting a visual trace for the median glucose level, with its 25–75th and 10–90th percentiles, according to a ‘modal’ day. In this way, the AGP provides a straightforward and visual means of identifying times of increased risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia that, in turn, provides a robust platform for the diabetes healthcare professional and the person with diabetes to explore, discuss and resolve the underlying reasons for suboptimal diabetes control.


ambulatory glucose profile, continuous glucose monitoring, glycaemic variability

Full Text:



Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18(Suppl 2):S23-S213.

Clarke W, Kovatchev B. Statistical tools to analyze continuous glucose monitor data. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009;11(Suppl 1):S45-S54.

Scheiner G. Data, data everywhere. How to analyze, interpret and apply information from continuous glucose monitors. Diabetes Self-Management 2008. Available at (accessed March 2016)

Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP). Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:198-211.

DCCT Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977-86.

Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405-12.

Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Wijesuriya S, et al. Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2009;373:1765-72.

Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, et al. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643-53.

Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1577-89.

Goto A, Arah OA, Goto M, Terauchi Y, Noda M. Severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis with bias analysis. BMJ 2013;347:f4533.

Yakubovich N, Gerstein HC. Serious cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: the role of hypoglycemia. Circulation 2011;123:342-8. Diabetes burnout. Available at emotions/diabetes-burnout.html (accessed March 2016).

Gebel E. Diabetes distress. American Diabetes Association. Available at (accessed March 2016).

Ceriello A, Kilpatrick ES. Glycemic variability: both sides of the story. Diabetes Care 2013;36(Suppl 2):S272-5.

Ceriello A, Novials A, Ortega E, et al. Hyperglycemia following recovery from hypoglycemia worsens endothelial damage and thrombosis activation in type 1 diabetes and in healthy controls. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014;24:116-23.

Hirakawa Y, Arima H, Zoungas S, et al. Impact of visit-to-visit glycemic variability on the risks of macrovascular and microvascular events and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes: the ADVANCE trial. Diabetes Care 2014; 37:2359-65.

Gorst C, Kwok CS, Aslam S, et al. Long-term glycemic variability and risk of adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2015;38:2354-69.

Smith-Palmer J, Brandle M, Trevisan R, Orsini Federici M, Liabat S, Valentine W. Assessment of the association between glycemic variability and diabetes-related complications in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014;105:273-84.

Lachin JM, Genuth S, Nathan DM, Zinman B, Rutledge BN; DCCT/EDIC Research Group. The effect of glycemic exposure on the risk of microvascular complications in the diabetes control and complications trial–revisited. Diabetes 2008;57:995-1001.

Ceriello A, Esposito K, Piconi L, et al. Oscillating glucose is more deleterious to endothelial function and oxidative stress than mean glucose in normal and type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes 2008;57:1349-54.

Liao JK. Linking endothelial dysfunction with endothelial cell activation. J Clin Invest 2013;123:540-1.

Suh S, Kim JH. Glycemic variability: how do we measure it and why is it important? Diabetes Metab J 2015;39:273-82.

 American Diabetes Association. 6. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care 2015;38(Suppl 1):S33-S40.

Kowalski AJ, Dutta S. It’s time to move from A1c to better metrics for diabetes control. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:194-6.

Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach. Update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia 2015;58:429-42.

Chow E, Bernjak A, Williams S, et al. Risk of cardiac arrhythmias during hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk. Diabetes 2014;63:1738-47.

Leese GP, Wang J, Broomhall J, et al. Frequency of severe hypoglycemia requiring emergency treatment in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a population-based study of health service resource use. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:1176-80.

UK Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Risk of hypoglycaemia in types 1 and 2 diabetes: effects of treatment modalities and their duration. Diabetologia 2007;50:1140-7.

Frier BM, Jensen MM, Chubb BD. Hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes in the UK: self-reported frequency and effects. Diabet Med 2016;33:1125-32.

Frier BM. Hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus: epidemiology and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2014;10:711-22.

Lawton J, Rankin D, Elliott J, et al. Experiences, views, and support needs of family members of people with hypoglycemia unawareness: interview study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:109-15.

Jensen MM, Pedersen-Bjergaard U. Self-reported frequency and impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events in insulin-treated diabetic patients in Denmark. Diabetes Manag 2015;5:67-78.

Peyrot M, Barnett AH, Meneghini LF, Schumm-Draeger PM. Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational Global Attitudes of Patients and Physicians in Insulin Therapy study. Diabet Med 2012;29:682-9.

Liebl A, Henrichs HR, Heinemann L, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring: evidence and consensus statement for clinical use. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:500-19.

Ahn D, Pettus J, Edelman S. Unblinded CGM should replace blinded CGM in the clinical management of diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016;10:793-8.

Heinemann L, Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, Continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015;9:947-50.

Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Alva S. The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:787-94.

Trevitt S, Simpson S, Wood A. Artificial pancreas device systems for the closed-loop control of type 1 diabetes: what systems are in development? J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016;10:714-23.

Diabetes UK. The Freestyle Libre. Available at (accessed January 2016).

Hammond P. Interpreting the ambulatory glucose profile. Br J Diabetes 2016;16(Suppl 1):8-13.

Rodbard D. Clinical interpretation of indices of quality of glycemic control and glycemic variability. Postgrad Med 2011;123:107-18.

Mazze RS, Lucido D, Langer O, Hartmann K, Rodbard D. Ambulatory glucose profile: representation of verified self-monitored blood glucose data. Diabetes Care 1987;10:111-17.

Serrano K. FDA supports standardized reporting and analysis on CGM devices. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:348-9.

Matthaei S. Assessing the value of the Ambulatory Glucose Profile in clinical practice. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2014;14:148-52.

Dunn TC, Crouther N. Assessment of the variance of the ambulatory glucose profile over 3 to 20 days of continuous glucose monitoring. Abstract 1054, presented at EASD, 2010.

Rodbard D. Standardization versus customization of glucose reporting. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:439-43. dia.2013.0116

Wens J, Vermeire E, Van Royen P, Sabbe B, Denekens J. GPs' perspectives of type 2 diabetes patients' adherence to treatment: a qualitative analysis of barriers and solutions. BMC Fam Pract 2005;6:20.

 Bakatselos SO. Hypoglycemia unawareness. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 93(Suppl 1):S92-6.

Hayes M. Management of hypoglycaemia unawareness in type 1 diabetes: a review. J Diabetes Nursing 2008;12:234-8.

Matthaei S, Antuña Dealaiz R, Bosi E, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of Ambulatory Glucose Profile in clinical practice. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2014;14:153-7.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

The Journal of the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists