The efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a gliclazide modified release-based regimen. A multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, 6-month evaluation (DINAMIC 1 study)

The Efficacy and Frequency of Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in Non-insulin-Treated T2D Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a useful tool in diabetes management, but its efficacy and optimal application in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients treated without insulin have been controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SMBG in controlling blood glucose levels in non-insulin-treated T2D patients and to determine the optimal frequency and the most appropriate population to benefit from SMBG.

METHODS

Eligible publications from January 2000 to April 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing SMBG with no SMBG or structured SMBG (S-SMBG, SMBG with defined timing and frequency of glucose measurements) were included. Meta-analyses and sub-analyses were performed to assess the efficacy, optimal frequency, and most appropriate population for SMBG. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies involving 6204 participants were identified, including 17 comparing SMBG with no SMBG and 4 comparing SMBG with S-SMBG. SMBG reduced HbA1c (MD -0.30%, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.17) compared with no SMBG, and S-SMBG performed better than SMBG (MD -0.23%, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that HbA1c control was better with SMBG at 8-11 times weekly (MD -0.35%, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.20) compared with other frequencies and with lifestyle adjustments (MD -0.37%, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.23) than with no adjustments. No significant differences in HbA1c were observed between baseline HbA1c subgroups (≤ 8% and > 8%, P = 0.63) and between diabetes duration subgroups (≤ 6 years and > 6 years, P = 0.72), respectively.

DISCUSSION

SMBG was effective for controlling HbA1c in non-insulin-treated T2D patients, although lacking detailed monitoring design. Better outcomes were seen with SMBG at 8-11 times weekly and lifestyle adjustment based on SMBG results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021285604).

The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered of little clinical benefit for adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but no comprehensive review of a structured approach to SMBG has been published to date.

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sSMBG on HbA1c, treatment modifications, behavioral and psychosocial outcomes, and; examine the moderating effects of sSMBG protocol characteristics on HbA1c.

Data sources

Four databases searched (November 2020; updated: February 2022).

Study selection

Inclusion criteria: non-randomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies; reporting effect of sSMBG on stated outcomes; among adults (≥18 years) with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Studies excluded if involving children or people with insulin-treated or other forms of diabetes.

Data extraction and analysis

Outcome data extracted, and risk of bias/quality assessed independently by two researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted for RCTs, and moderators explored (HbA1c only).

Data synthesis

From 2,078 abstracts, k=23 studies were included (N=5,372). Risk of bias was evident and study quality was low. Outcomes assessed included: HbA1c (k=23), treatment modification (k=16), psychosocial/behavioral outcomes (k=12). Meta-analysis revealed a significant mean difference favoring sSMBG in HbA1c (-0·29%, 95% CI: -0·46 to -0·11, k=13) and diabetes self-efficacy (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.33, k=2). Meta-analysis revealed no significant moderating effects by protocol characteristics.

Limitations

Findings limited by heterogeneity in study designs, intervention characteristics, and psychosocial assessments.

Conclusion

A small positive effect of sSMBG on HbA1c and diabetes self-efficacy was observed. Narrative synthesis of sSMBG intervention characteristics may guide future implementation.

PROSPERO registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208857, identifier CRD42020208857.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Real-world Benefits of Diabetes Management App Use and Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glycemic Control: Retrospective Analyses

Background

Among self-care measures, the self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a critical component for checking blood glucose levels. In addition, there is growing evidence suggesting that digital technologies are being adopted as an additional method for health care systems to increase patient contact. However, for patients with non–insulin-treated diabetes mellitus type 2 (DMT2), the value of SMBG was inconsistent among studies, and the evidence for digital technologies from real-world clinical practice is still limited.

Objective

Our study aimed to assess patients with non–insulin-treated DMT2 who were receiving care from a single clinic and analyze whether the use of a diabetes management app and SMBG behavior would affect glycemic control in a real-world clinical setting.

Methods

We collaborated with a large clinic focused on diabetes care in Taiwan that had been using the Health2Sync mobile app and web-based Patient Management Platform to collect the data. The patients were divided into 2 groups (app-engaged-user group and only-data-uploader group) according to different activities in the app, and blood glucose was recorded every month from 1 to 6 months after registration in the app. A sample of 420 patients was included in the analysis, and a linear mixed model was built to investigate which factors affected the patients’ blood glucose percentage change.

Results

Using the mixed model coefficient estimates, we found that the percentage change was significantly negative when the only-data-uploader group was set as the baseline (t=–3.873, df=1.81 × 10⁴; P<.001 for the patients of the app-engaged-user group). We found that for patients with shorter diabetes duration, their blood glucose decreased more than patients with longer diabetes duration (t=2.823, df=1.71 × 10⁴; P=.005 for the number of years of diabetes duration). In addition, we found that for younger patients, their blood glucose decreased more than older patients (t=2.652, df=1.71 × 10⁴; P=.008 for the age of the patients). Furthermore, the patients with an education level of junior high school or lower saw a significantly greater decrease in blood glucose percentage change than the patients with an education level of senior high school or higher (t=4.996, df=1.72 × 10⁴; P<.001 for the patients with an education level of senior high school or higher). We also found that the count of blood glucose measured enlarged the decrease along the interaction months (t=–8.266, df=1.97 × 10⁴; P<.001 for the nth month × the count of blood glucose in the nth month). Lastly, the gender of the patients did not significantly affect the percentage change (t=0.534, df=1.74 × 10⁴; P=.59 for female patients).

Conclusions

Our analysis showed the following: the blood glucose percentage change of the patients in the app-engaged-user group dropped more than that in the only-data-uploader group; shorter diabetes duration is associated with a steeper decrease in the patients’ blood glucose percentage change; the percentage decrease in blood glucose change in younger patients is greater than older patients; the blood glucose percentage change of the patients with an education level of junior high school or lower dropped more than those with an education level of senior high school or higher; and the more frequently the patients test SMBG each month, the greater the decrease in the patients’ blood glucose percentage. Further studies can be performed to consider the differences in daily behaviors such as exercise and diet across the patients and whether these factors could have vital effects on glycemic control.

Evaluating the impact of self-monitoring of blood glucose frequencies on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

International diabetes guidelines have not established the frequencies of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who do not use insulin. The present study aimed to assess the impact of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) frequencies on the glucose control and other outcomes in non-insulin-treated patients with T2D.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in four databases. Randomised controlled trials with ≥6-month follow-up duration that compared the impact of different frequencies of SMBG on glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were included. Studies with abstract only or reported effects of SMBG as a secondary outcome were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 1557 studies identified, 12 RCTs with a total of 3350 patients were analysed. Overall, performing SMBG for 8 to 14 times per week was correlated with a better HbA1c control at 6 months (MD -0.46%, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.39) and 12 months (MD -0.20%, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.11). However, up to seven measurements of SMBG per week did not significantly affect glycaemic control. In addition, performing SMBG between 8 and 14 times per week was also associated with improved BMI (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08). When the results of SMBG were applied to adjust diabetes medication, a significant reduction in HbA1c levels was observed in the intervention arm compared to the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight to 14 measurements of SMBG per week were associated with an improved glycaemic control and a reduced BMI in patients with T2D not using insulin.

Blood Glucose Monitoring and Its Determinants in Diabetic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Shandong, China

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to explore the status of blood glucose monitoring and its determinants in diabetic patients in Shandong Province, China.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from 31 August to 12 October 12, in Shandong Province. A multi-stage stratified cluster sampling method was used to select participants. A total of 2183 diabetic patients were included in the analysis. Frequencies and proportions were used to describe the data, and multiple binary logistic regressions were performed to determine factors associated with blood glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 51.4% tested their blood glucose level more than once a month. The multivariate logistic regression model showed that seven variables were significantly associated with the frequency of blood glucose monitoring: education level, residence, household income, self-reported health, physical examination, anti-diabetic drug or insulin injection, and comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of blood glucose monitoring among diabetic patients in Shandong Province is low. Based on these results we recommend that the cost of blood glucose monitoring by professionals in laboratories be reimbursed or at least reduced and that diabetic patients be encouraged to undergo regular physical examinations.

Effects of Structured Versus Unstructured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glucose Control in Patients With Non-insulin-treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is debated. Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest a small reduction of HbA1c in patients using SMBG, without considering potential confounders, such as SMBG regimen and use of SMBG data to adjust diabetes medications.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed including RCTs in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, with an intervention of ≥24 weeks and HbA1c as the primary endpoint, to verify the effect of SMBG (vs no monitoring), structured SMBG (vs unstructured), and of SMBG-driven therapy adjustments.

RESULTS

In RCTs (n = 8) comparing SMBG with no SMBG (1277 and 1072 patients, respectively), SMBG reduced HbA1c by -0.17% (95% CI -0.25 to -0.09%, P < .003). The reduction in HbA1c was greater in RCTs (n = 3) in which SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes medications (HbA1c decrease: -0.3% [95% CI -0.49 to -0.1%]) than in RCTs (n = 6) where SMBG data were not used for this purpose (HbA1c decrease: -0.1% [95% CI -0.2 to 0.0%]) ( P < .005). In the RCTs comparing structured and unstructured SMBG (757 and 750 patients, respectively), in which structured SMBG data were also used to adjust diabetes medications, the HbA1c difference between groups at study end was -0.27% (95% CI -0.49 to -0.04%, P < .018).

CONCLUSIONS

In RCTs performed in non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, SMBG is associated with a significant, although small, reduction in HbA1c. HbA1c reduction was greater with structured SMBG and when structured SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes therapy.

Glucose Self-monitoring in Non-Insulin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

The value of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes has been debated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 approaches of SMBG for effects on hemoglobin A1c levels and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among people with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in primary care practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Monitor Trial study was a pragmatic, open-label randomized trial conducted in 15 primary care practices in central North Carolina. Participants were randomized between January 2014 and July 2015. Eligible patients with type 2 non-insulin-treated diabetes were: older than 30 years, established with a primary care physician at a participating practice, had glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c) levels higher than 6.5% but lower than 9.5% within the 6 months preceding screening, as obtained from the electronic medical record, and willing to comply with the results of random assignment into a study group. Of the 1032 assessed for eligibility, 450 were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

No SMBG, once-daily SMBG, and once-daily SMBG with enhanced patient feedback including automatic tailored messages delivered via the meter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary outcomes included hemoglobin A1c levels and HRQOL at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were randomized and 418 (92.9%) completed the final visit. There were no significant differences in hemoglobin A1c levels across all 3 groups (P = .74; estimated adjusted mean hemoglobin A1c difference, SMBG with messaging vs no SMBG, -0.09%; 95% CI, -0.31% to 0.14%; SMBG vs no SMBG, -0.05%; 95% CI, -0.27% to 0.17%). There were also no significant differences found in HRQOL. There were no notable differences in key adverse events including hypoglycemia frequency, health care utilization, or insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, we observed no clinically or statistically significant differences at 1 year in glycemic control or HRQOL between patients who performed SMBG compared with those who did not perform SMBG. The addition of this type of tailored feedback provided through messaging via a meter did not provide any advantage in glycemic control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02033499.

Pharmacology and therapeutic implications of current drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic that poses a major challenge to health-care systems. Improving metabolic control to approach normal glycaemia (where practical) greatly benefits long-term prognoses and justifies early, effective, sustained and safety-conscious intervention. Improvements in the understanding of the complex pathogenesis of T2DM have underpinned the development of glucose-lowering therapies with complementary mechanisms of action, which have expanded treatment options and facilitated individualized management strategies. Over the past decade, several new classes of glucose-lowering agents have been licensed, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. These agents can be used individually or in combination with well-established treatments such as biguanides, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Although novel agents have potential advantages including low risk of hypoglycaemia and help with weight control, long-term safety has yet to be established. In this Review, we assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profiles, including cardiovascular safety, of currently available therapies for management of hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM within the context of disease pathogenesis and natural history. In addition, we briefly describe treatment algorithms for patients with T2DM and lessons from present therapies to inform the development of future therapies.

Is self-monitoring of blood glucose effective in improving glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes without insulin treatment: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to verify the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and ClinicalTrials.gov from their respective inception dates to 26 October 2015. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included according to prespecified criteria. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the evidence quality of meta-analyses was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. A meta-analysis of primary and secondary outcome measures was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out to evaluate the robustness and heterogeneity of the findings. Begg's and Egger's tests were used to quantify publication biases.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs, comprising 3383 patients with non-insulin-treated T2D, met the inclusion criteria. The SMBG intervention improved glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (mean difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.22; p=3.0730e-8; n=18), body mass index (BMI; -0.65; -1.18 to -0.12; p=0.0164; n=9) and total cholesterol (TC; -0.12; -0.20 to -0.04; p=0.0034; n=8) more effectively than the control in overall effect. The sensitivity analysis revealed little difference in overall effect, indicating the robustness of the results. SMBG moderated HbA1c levels better than the control in all subgroup analyses. Most of the RCTs had high risk of bias in blinding, while the overall quality of evidence for HbA1c was moderate according to the GRADE criteria. Publication bias was moderate for BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

SMBG improved HbA1c levels in the short term (≤6-month follow-up) and long term (≥12-month follow-up) in patients with T2D who were not using insulin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015019099.

Structured SMBG in early management of T2DM: Contributions from the St Carlos study

Diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) is a global pandemic that will affect 300 million people in the next decade. It has been shown that early and aggressive treatment of T2DM from the onset decreases complications, and the patient’s active role is necessary to achieve better glycemic control. In order to achieve glycemic control targets, an active attitude in patients is needed, and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) plays a significant role. Nowadays, SMBG has become an important component of modern therapy for diabetes mellitus, and is even more useful if it is performed in a structured way. SMBG aids physicians and patients to achieve a specific level of glycemic control and to prevent hypoglycemia. In addition, SMBG empowers patients to achieve nutritional and physical activity goals, and helps physicians to optimize the different hypoglycemic therapies as demonstrated in the St Carlos study. This article describes the different ways of using this educational and therapeutic tool from the medical point of view as well as from the patient’s perspective.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: from evidence to clinical reality in Central and Eastern Europe--recommendations from the international Central-Eastern European expert group

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.

A randomised, controlled trial of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving conventional insulin treatment

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated whether self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) leads to better glycaemic control (HbA(1c)) in patients with type 2 diabetes on conventional insulin regimens.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes on a conventional insulin regimen (basal or premixed insulin with or without additional oral glucose-lowering agents) were recruited at study centres led by members of the German Diabetes Association. In a randomised, prospective, open 2 × 2 factorial design, the once-weekly performance of four-point glucose profiles (SMBG +; n = 151 patients) was compared with no SMBG (SMBG -; n = 149), and the measuring and transmitting of HbA1c results to the study centres (HbA(1c) +; n = 158, of these 82 SMBG - and 76 SMBG +) was compared with HbA1c measurement without disclosure of results (HbA(1c) -; n = 142, of these 67 SMBG - and 75 SMBG +). Randomised allocation was carried out by a central office, using sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes. The primary endpoint was the reduction of HbA(1c) compared with baseline after 12 months. Secondary analyses were of therapy intensification in response to higher blood or urinary glucose or HbA(1c). Participants and caregivers were not blinded as to the allocation of interventions, whereas the laboratory determining HbA(1c) remained blinded.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were balanced across groups. A total of 56 patients dropped out. In completers, HbA(1c) was reduced in the SMBG + group from 7.3% to 7.0%, i.e. by 0.3% (0.1%, 0.5%) vs SMBG - from 7.3% to 7.0% and 0.3% (0.2%, 0.5%), respectively, the difference being 0.0% (-0.2%, 0.2%) (p = 0.93). The disclosure of HbA(1c) results had no significant influence, with a difference of 0.1% (-0.1%, 0.4%) (p = 0.28). Values above are mean (95% CI). The ORs for therapy intensification significantly rose as the following increased: proportions of urine samples testing positive for glucose, HbA1c concentrations, and fasting or postprandial glucose concentrations. No important adverse events were associated with the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

SMBG profiles once weekly or the disclosure of HbA(1c) results did not improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes on conventional insulin treatment, although indicators of hyperglycaemia increased the likelihood of therapy intensification. Greater intensification may be necessary to impact on glycaemic control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration code NCT00688363) FUNDING: Deutsche Diabetes-Gesellschaft, Deutsche Diabetes-Stiftung, Bayer Vital GmbH.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in Black Caribbean and South Asian Canadians with non-insulin treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study of patients' perspectives

BACKGROUND

To examine the views and current practice of SMBG among Black Caribbean and South Asian individuals with non-insulin treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Twelve participants completed semi-structured interviews that were guided by the Health Belief Model and analyzed using thematic network analysis.

RESULTS

The frequency of monitoring among participants varied from several times a day to once per week. Most participants expressed similar experiences regarding their views and practices of SMBG. Minor differences across gender and culture were observed. All participants understood the benefits, but not all viewed SMBG as beneficial to their personal diabetes management. SMBG can facilitate a better understanding and maintenance of self-care behaviours. However, it can trigger both positive and negative emotional responses, such as a sense of disappointment when high readings are not anticipated, resulting in emotional distress. Health care professionals play a key role in the way SMBG is perceived and used by patients.

CONCLUSION

While the majority of participants value SMBG as a self-management tool, barriers exist that impede its practice, particularly its cost. How individuals cope with these barriers is integral to understanding why some patients adopt SMBG more than others.

Association of self-monitoring of blood glucose use on glycated hemoglobin and weight in newly diagnosed, insulin-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have shown that self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) combined with patient education and medication titration can lead to improved glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and reduced weight in recently diagnosed non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. This retrospective matched cohort study assessed the association of SMBG with achieving long-term clinical outcomes in these patients in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Using electronic medical records (2008-2011), we selected a population of adult patients recently diagnosed with T2DM not receiving insulin who were SMBG users and a population of non-SMBG controls with similar demographic and clinical characteristics using propensity score matching. The main study outcomes compared between the two groups were time to achieve (1) HbA1c <7% for patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 7% and (2) a ≥ 5% reduction in weight from baseline.

RESULTS

Of the 589 patients identified in each group, 113 in each group had a baseline HbA1c ≥ 7% (mean, 8.2%). The SMBG users were more likely to achieve an HbA1c <7% (12 months: 58.4% versus 38.9%, p = .0037; 36 months: 84.0% versus 70.0%, p = .0013) and to do so faster (median, 6.5 versus 20.5 months; log-rank p = .0016). Self-monitoring of blood glucose was associated with faster weight reduction (median time to achieve a ≥ 5% reduction, 23.5 versus 35.9 months for SMBG and non-SMBG, respectively; log-rank p = .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

In newly diagnosed T2DM insulin-naïve patients, SMBG users had an improved rate of achieving long-term glycemic control and weight loss in a real-world clinical setting.

Stepwise self-titration of oral glucose-lowering medication using a mobile telephone-based telehealth platform in type 2 diabetes: a feasibility trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Telehealth-supported clinical interventions may improve diabetes self-management. We explored the feasibility of stepwise self-titration of oral glucose-lowering medication guided by a mobile telephone-based telehealth platform for improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We recruited 14 type 2 diabetes patients to a one-year feasibility study with 1:1 randomization. Intervention group patients followed a stepwise treatment plan for titration of oral glucose-lowering medication with self-monitoring of glycemia using real-time graphical feedback on a mobile telephone and remote nurse monitoring using a Web-based tool. We carried out an interim analysis at 6 months.

RESULTS

We screened 3476 type 2 diabetes patients; 94% of the ineligible did not meet the eligibility criteria for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or current treatment. Mean (standard deviation) patient age at baseline was 58 (11) years, HbA1c was 65 (12) mmol/mol (8.1% [1.1%]), body mass index was 32.9 (6.4) kg/m2, median [interquartile range (IQR)] diabetes duration was 2.6 (0.6 to 4.7) years, and 10 (71%) were men. The median (IQR) change in HbA1c from baseline to six months was -10 (-21 to 3) mmol/mol (-0.9% [-1.9% to 0%]) in the intervention group and -5 (-13 to 6) mmol/mol (-0.5% [-1.2% to 0.6%]) in the control group. Six out of seven intervention group patients and four out of seven control group patients changed their oral glucose-lowering medication (p = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-titration of oral glucose-lowering medication in type 2 diabetes with self-monitoring and remote monitoring of glycemia is feasible, and further studies using adapted recruitment strategies are required to evaluate whether it improves clinical outcomes.

[Blood glucose self monitoring]

Self monitoring of blood glucose contributes to the integrated management of diabetes mellitus. It, thus, should be available for all patients with diabetes mellitus type-1 and type-2. Self monitoring of blood glucose improves patients safety, quality of life and glucose control. The current article represents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association for the use of blood glucose self monitoring according to current scientific evidence.

What do we need beyond hemoglobin A1c to get the complete picture of glycemia in people with diabetes?

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is currently the most commonly used marker for the determination of the glycemic status in people with diabetes and it is frequently used to guide therapy and especially medical treatment of people with diabetes. The measurement of HbA1c has reached a high level of analytical quality and, therefore, this biomarker is currently also suggested to be used for the diagnosis of diabetes. Nevertheless, it is crucial for people with diabetes and their treating physicians to be aware of possible interferences during its measurement as well as physiological or pathological factors that contribute to the HbA1c concentration without being related to glycemia, which are discussed in this review. We performed a comprehensive review of the literature based on PubMed searches on HbA1c in the treatment and diagnosis of diabetes including its most relevant limitations, glycemic variability and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Although the high analytical quality of the HbA1c test is widely acknowledged, the clinical relevance of this marker regarding risk reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is still under debate. In this respect, we argue that glycemic variability as a further risk factor should deserve more attention in the treatment of diabetes.

Effects of a structured self-monitoring of blood glucose method on patient self-management behavior and metabolic outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on patient self-management behavior and metabolic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

From January to June 2009, 30 patients with basic diabetes education were followed for a period of 90 days. To provide assessment of glycemic control and frequency of dysglycemia, patients, underwent 3 consecutive days of seven-point SMBG during each month for 3 consecutive months, using the ACCU-CHEK 360° View tool. Glucose profiles of the first and third month were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) improved significantly during the 90-day period in all patients [confidence interval (CI) 95%, 0.32-1.64%, p < .05] and those with poor metabolic control (group B; CI 95%, 0.86-2.64%, p < .05). Mean blood glucose (MBG) values decreased significantly in group B (CI 95%, 0.56-24.78 mg/dl, p < .05) and all cases (CI 95%, 1.61-19.73 mg/dl, p < .05). Meanwhile, there was an average decrease of 15.7 mg/dl in fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels in the whole subjects. Mean postprandial blood glucose levels (MPP) decreased by 19.3 and 11.3 mg/dl in group B and in all cases, respectively. However, there were no significant changes in HbA1c, MBG, FBS, and MPP in people with good metabolic control.

CONCLUSION

A structured SMBG program improves HbA1c, FBS, MPP, and MBG in people with poorly controlled diabetes. This improvement shows the importance of patient self-management behavior on metabolic outcomes in T2DM.

Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥ 7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months.

RESULTS

The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.2% (0.09) vs. -0.9% (0.10); Δ = -0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.3% (0.11) vs. -0.8% (0.11); Δ = -0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient's initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB).

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB.

Why patients should be more empowered: a European perspective on lessons learned in the management of diabetes

Patient empowerment has emerged as a new paradigm that can help improve medical outcomes while lowering costs of treatment. The concept seems particularly promising in the management of chronic diseases. Diabetes may provide a blueprint for implementing patient empowerment because empowering patients has been instrumental in achieving the successes we have witnessed in the management of diabetes in recent decades. Looking at the example of diabetes, this article investigates the role and contribution of patient empowerment to therapy success and derives actions that need to be taken in order to fully leverage the potential of this concept for patients, health care professionals, and health systems.

The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with Type 2 Diabetes: design of the Structured Testing Program (STeP) study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial [NCT00674986]

BACKGROUND

The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c >or= 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010.

DISCUSSION

The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patients and physicians. Utilization of per protocol and intent-to-treat analyses facilitates a comprehensive assessment of the intervention. Use of practice site cluster-randomisation reduces the potential for intervention contamination, and inclusion criteria (HbA1c >or= 7.5%) reduces the possibility of floor effects. Inclusion of multiple dependent variables allows us to assess the broader impact of the intervention, including changes in patient and physician attitudes and behaviours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials NCT00674986.

Efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed without insulin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels is commonly performed by patients with diabetes mellitus. However, there is debate surrounding the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this practice among patients with type 2 diabetes managed without insulin. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of self-monitoring versus no self-monitoring, and the optimal frequency of self-monitoring, in this population.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English from January 1990 to March 2009. Additional citations were obtained through searches of the Internet and conference proceedings, and from stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and performed an assessment of the methodologic quality of the studies. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c (HbA(₁c)) concentration, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term complications of diabetes and death. Where appropriate, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 1624 citations through the literature search and selected 25 articles for inclusion. We observed a statistically significant improvement in the HbA(₁c) concentration across RCTs that compared self-monitoring of blood glucose levels with no self-monitoring among patients taking oral antidiabetes drug therapy (weighted mean difference --0.25%, 95% confidence interval -0.36% to -0.15%). Subgroup analysis indicated that results from RCTs that provided patients with education on how to interpret and apply self-monitoring test results were similar to those from RCTs that did not. On the basis of limited evidence, self-monitoring of blood glucose levels did not demonstrate consistent benefits in terms of quality of life, patient satisfaction, prevention of hypoglycemia or long-term complications of diabetes, or reduction of mortality. There was insufficient evidence pertaining to the optimal frequency of self-monitoring.

INTERPRETATION

Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels was associated with a modest, statistically significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c concentrations, regardless of whether patients were provided with education on how to interpret and use the test results. Further studies are required to determine whether self-monitoring reduces the risk of long-term complications of diabetes and to identify patients most likely to benefit from self-monitoring.

Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed without insulin

BACKGROUND

The benefits of self-monitoring blood glucose levels are unclear in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who do not use insulin, but there are considerable costs. We sought to determine the cost effectiveness of self-monitoring for patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin.

METHODS

We performed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the self-monitoring of blood glucose in adults with type 2 diabetes not taking insulin. We used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) model to forecast diabetes-related complications, corresponding quality-adjusted life years and costs. Clinical data were obtained from a systematic review comparing self-monitoring with no self-monitoring. Costs and utility decrements were derived from published sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Based on a clinically modest reduction in hemoglobin A(1C) of 0.25% (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.36) estimated from the systematic review, the UKPDS model predicted that self-monitoring performed 7 or more times per week reduced the lifetime incidence of diabetes-related complications compared with no self-monitoring, albeit at a higher cost (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year $113,643). The results were largely unchanged in the sensitivity analysis, although the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year fell within widely cited cost-effectiveness thresholds when testing frequency or the price per test strip was substantially reduced from the current levels.

INTERPRETATION

For most patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin, use of blood glucose test strips for frequent self-monitoring (>or= 7 times per week) is unlikely to represent efficient use of finite health care resources, although periodic testing (e.g., 1 or 2 times per week) may be cost-effective. Reduced test strip price would likely also improve cost-effectiveness.

Are type 2 diabetes patients who self-monitor blood glucose special? The role of confounders in the observational ROSSO study

BACKGROUND

In the German multicenter, retrospective cohort study (ROSSO), those patients with type 2 diabetes who performed self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) had a better long-term clinical outcome. We analyzed whether confounders accounted for the lower rate of clinical events in the SMBG cohort.

METHODS

ROSSO followed 3268 persons from diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for a mean of 6.5 years. Data were retrieved from patient files of randomly contacted primary care practices.

RESULTS

In total, more than 60 potential confounders were documented, including nondisease-associated parameters such as patient's health insurance, marital status, habitation, and characteristics of diabetes centers. There were only modest differences for these parameters between groups with versus without SMBG, and multiple adjustments did not weaken the association of SMBG use with better outcome (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.81, p < .001). This was also true for subgroups of patients defined by type of antidiabetes treatment. Propensity score analysis confirmed the association of SMBG use with outcome. Using key baseline parameters, 813 matching pairs of patients were identified. The analysis again showed a better long-term outcome in the SMBG group (hazard ratio 0.67 p = .004).

CONCLUSION

An influence of nonrecognized confounders on better outcome in the SMBG group is rendered improbable by similar results obtained with adjustments for disease-associated or disease-independent parameters, by the analysis of patient subgroups, by propensity score analysis and by performing a matched-pair analysis. The higher flexibility in pharmacological antidiabetes treatment regimens in the SMBG cohort suggests a different attitude of treating physicians and patients in association with SMBG.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose as part of the integral care of type 2 diabetes

Results from landmark diabetes studies have established A1C as the gold standard for assessing long-term glycemic control. However, A1C does not provide "real-time" information about individual hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic excursions. Real-time information provided by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) represents an important adjunct to A1C, because it can differentiate fasting, preprandial, and postprandial hyperglycemia; detect glycemic excursions; identify hypoglycemia; and provide immediate feedback about the effect of food choices, physical activity, and medication on glycemic control. The importance of SMBG is widely appreciated and recommended as a core component of management in patients with type 1 or insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, as well as in diabetic pregnancy, for both women with pregestational type 1 and gestational diabetes. Nevertheless, SMBG in management of non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients continues to be debated. Results from clinical trials are inconclusive, and reviews fail to reach an agreement, mainly because of methodological problems. Carefully designed large-scale studies on diverse patient populations with type 2 diabetes with the follow-up period to investigate long-term effects of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes should be carried out to clarify how to make the best use of SMBG, in which patients, and under what conditions.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes mellitus: arguments for an individualized approach

BACKGROUND

The utility of glucose self-monitoring in different types and stages of diabetes is controversial, as there is only sparse relevant evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials. In this analysis, the authors aim to develop individualized recommendations based on clinical needs and the available literature.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for articles that appeared up to 30 September 2008 containing the terms "measurement," "control","monitoring," and "hypoglycemia"; the retrieved articles were supplemented by other articles that were cited in them. A directed search was also made for the recommendations of the German, European, American, and international diabetological societies. Conclusions were then drawn about the useful modalities and extent of glucose self-monitoring on the basis of the clinical features of the major types of diabetes and the main treatment strategies for them.

RESULTS

With the exception of intensified treatment strategies (which rely on blood-sugar regulation with insulin), only a few evidence-based recommendations can be derived from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses. Nonetheless, a strategy for self-monitoring according to the patient's individual needs can be derived from the characteristics of therapeutic regimens: depending on the type of diabetes from which the patient suffers, the predicted number of glucometer strips required for self-monitoring will vary from almost none to roughly 400 per month.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to use glucose self-monitoring, as well as the type and extent of self-monitoring that will be used, should be based on the individual patient's type of diabetes, treatment regimen, and clinical characteristics. Like any other type of therapeutic intervention, self-monitoring should have a well-documented, rational justification.

Value of self-monitoring blood glucose pattern analysis in improving diabetes outcomes

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an important adjunct to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. This action can distinguish between fasting, preprandial, and postprandial hyperglycemia; detect glycemic excursions; identify and monitor resolution of hypoglycemia; and provide immediate feedback to patients about the effect of food choices, activity, and medication on glycemic control. Pattern analysis is a systematic approach to identifying glycemic patterns within SMBG data and then taking appropriate action based upon those results. The use of pattern analysis involves: (1) establishing pre- and postprandial glucose targets; (2) obtaining data on glucose levels, carbohydrate intake, medication administration (type, dosages, timing), activity levels and physical/emotional stress; (3) analyzing data to identify patterns of glycemic excursions, assessing any influential factors, and implementing appropriate action(s); and (4) performing ongoing SMBG to assess the impact of any therapeutic changes made. Computer-based and paper-based data collection and management tools can be developed to perform pattern analysis for identifying patterns in SMBG data. This approach to interpreting SMBG data facilitates rational therapeutic adjustments in response to this information. Pattern analysis of SMBG data can be of equal or greater value than measurement of HbA1c levels.

Consensus report of the coalition for clinical research-self-monitoring of blood glucose

The Coalition for Clinical Research-Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board, a group of nine academic clinicians and scientists from the United States and Europe, convened in San Francisco, California, on June 11-12, 2008, to discuss the appropriate uses of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and the measures necessary to accurately assess the potential benefit of this practice in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Thirteen consultants from the United States, Europe, and Canada from academia, practice, and government also participated and contributed based on their fields of expertise. These experts represent a range of disciplines that include adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, health education, mathematics, statistics, psychology, nutrition, exercise physiology, and nursing. This coalition was organized by Diabetes Technology Management, Inc. Among the participants, there was consensus that: protocols assessing the performance of SMBG in noninsulin treated T2DM must provide the SMBG intervention subjects with blood glucose (BG) goals and instructions on how to respond to BG data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs);intervention subjects in clinical trials of SMBG-driven interventions must aggressively titrate their therapeutic responses or lifestyle changes in response to hyperglycemia;control subjects in clinical trials of SMBG must be isolated from SMBG-driven interventions and not be contaminated by physician experience with study subjects receiving a SMBG intervention;the best endpoints to measure in a clinical trial of SMBG in T2DM include delta Hemoglobin A1c levels, hyperglycemic events, hypoglycemic events, time to titrate noninsulin therapy to a maximum necessary dosage, and quality of life indices;either individual randomization or cluster randomization may be appropriate methods for separating control subjects from SMBG intervention subjects, provided that precautions are taken to avoid bias and that the sample size is adequate;treatment algorithms for assessing SMBG in T2DM may include a dietary, exercise, and/or medication intervention, which are all titratable according to the SMBG values;the medical literature contains very little information about the performance of SMBG in T2DM from RCTs in which treatment algorithms were used for dysglycemic values; and research on the performance of SMBG in T2DM based on sound scientific principles and clinical practices is needed at this time.