Self-monitoring in Type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial of reimbursement policy

Assessing the influence of health systems on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus awareness, treatment, adherence, and control: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is reported to affect one in 11 adults worldwide, with over 80% of T2DM patients residing in low-to-middle-income countries. Health systems play an integral role in responding to this increasing global prevalence, and are key to ensuring effective diabetes management. We conducted a systematic review to examine the health system-level factors influencing T2DM awareness, treatment, adherence, and control.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A protocol for this study was published on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016048185). Studies included in this review reported the effects of health systems factors, interventions, policies, or programmes on T2DM control, awareness, treatment, and adherence. The following databases were searched on 22 February 2017: Medline, Embase, Global health, LILACS, Africa-Wide, IMSEAR, IMEMR, and WPRIM. There were no restrictions on date, language, or study designs. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted the data, and screened for risk of bias. Thereafter, we performed a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to methodological heterogeneity across different aspects of included studies. 93 studies were included for qualitative synthesis; 7 were conducted in LMICs. Through this review, we found two key health system barriers to effective T2DM care and management: financial constraints faced by the patient and limited access to health services and medication. We also found three health system factors that facilitate effective T2DM care and management: the use of innovative care models, increased pharmacist involvement in care delivery, and education programmes led by healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This review points to the importance of reducing, or possibly eliminating, out-of-pocket costs for diabetes medication and self-monitoring supplies. It also points to the potential of adopting more innovative and integrated models of care, and the value of task-sharing of care with pharmacists. More studies which identify the effect of health system arrangements on various outcomes, particularly awareness, are needed.

Reward-based, task-setting education strategy on glycemic control and self-management for low-income outpatients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to determine the feasibility and effect of a reward-based, task-setting strategy for low-income outpatients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Indigent diabetes outpatients without glucometers were eligible to participate in this trial. A total of 132 cases were randomly recruited. Participants in group B used glucometers for self-monitoring at no cost. Group A participants could keep the glucometers only if the glycosylated hemoglobin level declined compared with the baseline visit; for those not achieving a reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin level, the glucometers would have to be returned. Group C served as the control group without self-monitoring setout. Diabetes education was provided to all groups. Metabolic indices and self-management were evaluated after 6 months of follow up.

RESULTS

Group A had a significant decline in the glycosylated hemoglobin level (-0.97%) and medical costs (-159 yuan) compared with the baseline visit, whereas groups B and C had a decrease in the glycosylated hemoglobin levels alone (-0.62 and -0.57%, respectively). The body mass index did not change significantly in any group. There was a statistical difference in the glycosylated hemoglobin level of group A compared with groups B and C. Self-management in group A improved the outcome relative to groups B and C.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary evidence suggests that the program is feasible, acceptable for improving patient self-management, and cost-effective in reducing the glycosylated hemoglobin level and medical costs.

Challenging evidence and assumptions: is there a role for self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin?

BACKGROUND

There is debate in the literature about the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who do not use insulin. Several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclude that SMBG does not have any clinical benefit for this group.

OBJECTIVE

We critically appraise the available evidence, and argue whether SMBG is warranted for people with non-insulin-treated T2DM.

RESULTS

Considerable heterogeneity exists amongst the literature, and aspects of the methodology of some of these studies confound interpretation of results. Recent evidence demonstrates that when SMBG is 'structured', incorporated as part of a complex intervention, and embedded within education and collaborative care, improvements in average blood glucose levels result. In contrast, studies that do not apply SMBG systematically, or that assess a low frequency SMBG regimen that precludes identification and interpretation of SMBG patterns, are not clinically effective. Psychosocial outcomes, such as self-efficacy and diabetes-related distress, and other clinical outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia detection, should also be considered as important clinical endpoints.

LIMITATIONS

This is not a systematic literature review. The literature is limited by a lack of studies evaluating a 'structured' approach to SMBG.

CONCLUSIONS

It is the quality, not quantity, of SMBG that makes a difference to outcomes for people with non-insulin-treated T2DM. The benefits of 'structured' SMBG should be considered as part of a complex intervention when making decisions about policy and practice, and assumptions about the benefits of SMBG for people with non-insulin-treated T2DM should be challenged.

Effectiveness of goal-setting on glycemic control in poor outpatients with diabetes

The aim was to study the impact of goal-setting on glycemic control in poor outpatients. Participants were provided glucometers for self-monitoring at no cost, while goal-setting on glycemic control was drafted for the experimental group. A reduction in HbA1c of 1.16% indicated that the goal-setting program was feasible and cost-effective.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been found to be effective for patients with type 1 diabetes and for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. There is much debate on the effectiveness of SMBG as a tool in the self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin.

SEARCH METHODS

Multiple electronic bibliographic and ongoing trial databases were searched supplemented with handsearches of references of retrieved articles (date of last search: 07 July 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of SMBG compared with usual care, self-monitoring of urine glucose (SMUG) or both in patients with type 2 diabetes who where not using insulin. Studies that used glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) as primary outcome were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from included studies and evaluated the studies' risk of bias. Data from the studies were compared to decide whether they were sufficiently homogeneous to pool in a meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were HbA(1c), health-related quality of life, well-being and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose level, hypoglycaemic episodes, morbidity, adverse effects and costs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve randomised controlled trials were included and evaluated outcomes in 3259 randomised patients. Intervention duration ranged from 6 months (26 weeks) to 12 months (52 weeks). Nine trials compared SMBG with usual care without monitoring, one study compared SMBG with SMUG, one study was a three-armed trial comparing SMBG and SMUG with usual care and one study was a three-armed trial comparing less intensive SMBG and more intensive SMBG with a control group. Seven out of 11 studies had a low risk of bias for most indicators. Meta-analysis of studies including patients with a diabetes duration of one year or more showed a statistically significant SMBG induced decrease in HbA(1c) at up to six months follow-up (-0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to -0.1; 2324 participants, nine trials), yet an overall statistically non-significant SMBG induced decrease was seen at 12 month follow-up (-0.1; 95% CI -0.3 to 0.04; 493 participants, two trials). Qualitative analysis of the effect of SMBG on well-being and quality of life showed no effect on patient satisfaction, general well-being or general health-related quality of life. Two trials reported costs of self-monitoring: One trial compared the costs of self-monitoring of blood glucose with self-monitoring of urine glucose based on nine measurements per week and with the prices in US dollars for self-monitoring in 1990. Authors concluded that total costs in the first year of self-monitoring of blood glucose, with the purchase of a reflectance meter were 12 times more expensive than self-monitoring of urine glucose ($481 or 361 EURO [11/2011 conversion] versus $40 or 30 EURO [11/2011 conversion]). Another trial reported a full economical evaluation of the costs and effects of self-monitoring. At the end of the trial, costs for the intervention were £89 (104 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for standardized usual care (control group), £181 (212 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for the less intensive self-monitoring group and £173 (203 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for the more intensive self-monitoring group. Higher losses to follow-up in the more intensive self-monitoring group were responsible for the difference in costs, compared to the less intensive self-monitoring group.There were few data on the effects on other outcomes and these effects were not statistically significant. None of the studies reported data on morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From this review, we conclude that when diabetes duration is over one year, the overall effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin is small up to six months after initiation and subsides after 12 months. Furthermore, based on a best-evidence synthesis, there is no evidence that SMBG affects patient satisfaction, general well-being or general health-related quality of life. More research is needed to explore the psychological impact of SMBG and its impact on diabetes specific quality of life and well-being, as well as the impact of SMBG on hypoglycaemia and diabetic complications.

On what evidence-base do we recommend self-monitoring of blood glucose?

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been considered one major breakthrough in diabetes therapy because, for the first time, patients were able to determine their blood glucose levels during daily life. It seems obvious that this must be of advantage to disease management and clinical outcome, but it has become a nightmare for those trying to provide evidence. Randomised controlled trials have yielded inconsistent results on a benefit of SMBG-based treatment strategies not only in type 2 but - surprisingly - also in type 1 and gestational diabetes. Despite this, SMBG is being considered indispensible in intensive insulin treatment, but is being debated for other clinical settings. When considering the non-RCT based reasons for recommending SMBG in type 1 and gestational diabetes it becomes apparent that the same reasons also apply to type 2 diabetes.

Asthma self-assessment in a Medicaid population

BACKGROUND

Self-assessment of symptoms by patients with chronic conditions is an important element of disease management. A recent study in a commercially-insured population found that patients who received automated telephone calls for asthma self-assessment felt they benefitted from the calls. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of disease self-assessment in Medicaid populations. The goals of this study were to: (1) assess the feasibility of asthma self-assessment in a population predominantly insured by Medicaid, (2) study whether adding a gift card incentive increased completion of the self-assessment survey, and (3) evaluate how the self-assessment affected processes and outcomes of care.

METHODS

We studied adults and children aged 4 years and older who were insured by a Medicaid-focused managed care organization (MCO) in a pre- and post-intervention study. During the pre-incentive period, patients with computerized utilization data that met specific criteria for problematic asthma control were mailed the Asthma Control Test (ACT), a self-assessment survey, and asked to return it to the MCO. During the intervention period, patients were offered a $20 gift card for returning the completed ACT to the MCO. To evaluate clinical outcomes, we used computerized claims data to assess the number of hospitalization visits and emergency department visits experienced in the 3 months after receiving the ACT. To evaluate whether the self-management intervention improved processes of care, we conducted telephone interviews with patients who returned or did not return the ACT by mail.

RESULTS

During the pre-incentive period, 1183 patients were identified as having problems with asthma control; 25 (2.0%) of these returned the ACT to the MCO. In contrast, during the incentive period, 1612 patients were identified as having problems with asthma control and 87 (5.4%) of these returned the ACT to the MCO (p < 0.0001). Of all 95 ACTs that were returned, 87% had a score of 19 or less, which suggested poor asthma control.During the 3 months after they received the ACT, patients who completed it had similar numbers of outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for asthma as patients who did not complete the ACT. We completed interviews with 95 patients, including 28 who had completed the ACT and 67 who had not. Based on an ACT administered at the time of the interview, patients who had previously returned the ACT to the MCO had asthma control similar to those who had not (mean scores of 14.2 vs. 14.6, p = 0.70). Patients had similar rates of contacting their providers within the past 2 months whether they had completed the mailed ACT or not (71% vs. 76%, p = 0.57).

CONCLUSION

Mailing asthma self-assessment surveys to patients with poorly controlled asthma was not associated with better asthma-associated outcomes or processes of care in the Medicaid population studied. Adding a gift card incentive did not meaningfully increase response rates. Asthma disease management programs for Medicaid populations will most likely need to involve alternative strategies for engaging patients and their providers in managing their conditions.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: is it worth it?

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is advocated as a valuable aid in the management of diabetes. The volume and cost of monitoring continues to increase. SMBG has a number of theoretical advantages/disadvantages which might impact on treatment, outcome and wellbeing. Investigating and quantifying the effect of self-monitoring in a condition where self-management plays a central role poses major methodological difficulties because of the need to minimize confounding factors. Despite the absence of definitive evidence, some situations where monitoring is generally accepted to be beneficial include patients on insulin, during pregnancy, in patients with hypoglycaemia unawareness and while driving. An area of controversy is the role of monitoring in non-insulin-requiring type-2 diabetes where observational and controlled studies give conflicting results. The available evidence does not support the general use of monitoring by all patients with type-2 diabetes, although further research is needed to identify specific subgroups of patients or specific situations where monitoring might be useful. The best use of SMBG in patients with type-2 diabetes might be for those receiving insulin and those on sulphonylurea drugs. The impact of monitoring on patient wellbeing must also be considered, with some studies suggesting adverse psychological effects. Given the large increase in the prevalence of type-2 diabetes, it will be important to define the role of SMBG so that resources can be used appropriately. Presently, the widespread use of SMBG (particularly in type-2 diabetes patients) is a good example of self-monitoring that was adopted in advance of robust evidence of its clinical efficacy.

Overview on self-monitoring of blood glucose

The self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), traditionally performed by "point-of-care" (POC) devices called portable glucose monitors (PGM) is now considered an integral part of managed care of diabetic patients, especially type 1 diabetics and those on insulin therapy. In patients with type 2 diabetes, SMBG can help to achieve a better glycaemic control, although there is not sufficient evidence to attest that strict monitoring in these patients is associated with an improved outcome. The outcome of several clinical studies, especially in diabetics on insulin therapy, has shown that SMBG plays a key role in preventing complications in the short, medium and long term. According to the current recommendations, SMBG is aimed to achieve and maintain glycaemic control, prevent and identify hypoglycaemia, prevent severe hyperglycaemia, adjust lifestyle changes and establish the need to begin treatment with insulin in gestational diabetes mellitus. However, as clearly highlighted by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB), patients and healthcare personnel should be trained on the appropriate use of the device, as well as on the correct interpretation of data. Moreover, definite analytical targets and appropriate acceptance criteria for performance should be fulfilled before a new device is introduced in the hospital environment, or recommended to the patients. Performance limitations such as hematocrit extremes and analytical interferences should be clearly acknowledged by the operators, before taking test results for granted. The current article aims to review the current indications for SMGB and highlight the most important criteria for the appropriate use of PGMs.

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.

The relationship between type of drug therapy and blood glucose self-monitoring test strips claimed by beneficiaries of the Seniors' Pharmacare Program in Nova Scotia, Canada

BACKGROUND

The healthcare expenditure on self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips under the Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program (NSSPP) has increased significantly in recent years. The objective of this study was to identify the frequency and cost of claims for blood glucose monitoring test strips by NSSPP beneficiaries in the fiscal year 2005/06 and to explore the variation in the use of test strips by type of treatment, age and sex.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted using pharmacy administrative claims data for NSSPP beneficiaries. Study subjects were aged > or = 65 years on October 1, 2004, received SMBG test strips in the 110 days prior to April 1, 2005, and were alive throughout the twelve month study period. Subjects were categorized into four groups: insulin only, oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAA) only, both OAA and insulin; and no reimbursed diabetes medications. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences in expenditure by medication group and in frequency of SMBG test strips claimed by medication group, age, and sex.

RESULTS

Of 13,564 included beneficiaries, 13.2% were categorized as insulin only, 53.5% OAA only, 7.2% both OAA and insulin, and 26.0% no reimbursed diabetes medications. Over half (58.7%) were femle. The insulin only category had the highest mean (+/- SD) number of SMBG test strips claimed per day (2.0 +/- 1.5) with a mean annual total cost of $615 +/- $441/beneficiary. Beneficiaries aged 80 years and above claimed fewer test strips than beneficiaries below 80 years.

CONCLUSION

This population based study shows that in Nova Scotia the SMBG test strips claimed by the majority of seniors were within Canadian guidelines. However, a small proportion of beneficiaries claimed for SMBG test strips infrequently or too frequently, which suggests areas for improvement. The provincial drug plan covers the majority of the costs of test strip utilization, suggesting that the majority of test strips claimed did not exceed the maximum allowable cost (MAC) established in the program's MAC policy. Drug insurance programs need to work with healthcare providers to determine if patients are using test strips optimally; and to determine their impact on patient outcomes. In addition, they need to determine the cost-effectiveness of their SMBG test strip reimbursement policies.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes living in France: the Entred study 2001

OBJECTIVE

To describe the practice of self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) testing and to determine factors linked to SMBG in people with diabetes living in France.

METHODS

The 2001 Entred study, a French national survey of people being treated for diabetes, is based on a representative sample of 10,000 adults who claimed reimbursement for oral hypoglycaemic agents and/or insulin in October to December 2001 and who were randomly extracted from the database of the major National Health Insurance System. A questionnaire was mailed to all these people and was returned by 36% of them, who were then classified into three groups: type 1 diabetes (T1D, N=235); type 2 diabetes treated with insulin (iT2D, N=635); and type 2 diabetes treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (oT2D, N=2689). Factors associated with SMBG were analyzed using logistic regression models with a step-by-step forward approach.

RESULTS

HbA(1c) was greater than or equal to 8% in 42% of people with T1D, 48% of those with iT2D and 21% of those with oTD2. Almost all of those treated with insulin performed SMBG. The frequency of self-monitoring was higher in T1D than in iT2D. In T1D, 58% of people reported they took at least three tests a day, as recommended in guidelines, which was more frequent in those who knew what HbA(1c) meant and in women. In iT2D, 74% reported that they took at least two tests a day, as recommended, and it was more frequent in those who knew what HbA(1c) meant, who reported at least one severe hypoglycaemic episode in 2001 and who received dietary advice from their practitioner. In oT2D, 38% reported using SMBG (six tests a week on average), even though no official recommendation had been provided for these patients. SMBG was also more frequent in patients being treated with multiple oral hypoglycaemic agents, in those who benefited from a waiver of co-payment due to a chronic disease and in those, who had visited a diabetes specialist in 2001, reported they knew what HbA(1c) meant, received dietary advice and reported at least one severe hypoglycaemic episode in 2001 and/or a history of diabetes complications.

CONCLUSION

In France, as per the official recommendations, almost all people on insulin treatment use a SMBG device while, overall, their glucose control remains poor. More than one-third of those with oT2D regularly perform SMBG. In only 3% of people, the regular use of SMBG does not appear to be related to any special needs or events (such as insulin treatment, occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia or chronic complications).

Self monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: longitudinal qualitative study of patients' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To explore views of patients with type 2 diabetes about self monitoring of blood glucose over time.

DESIGN

Longitudinal, qualitative study.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care settings across Lothian, Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

18 patients with type 2 diabetes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Results from repeat in-depth interviews with patients over four years after clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed three main themes-the role of health professionals, interpreting readings and managing high values, and the ongoing role of blood glucose self monitoring. Self monitoring decreased over time, and health professionals' behaviour seemed crucial in this: participants interpreted doctors' focus on levels of haemoglobin A(1c), and lack of perceived interest in meter readings, as indicating that self monitoring was not worth continuing. Some participants saw readings as a proxy measure of good and bad behaviour-with women especially, chastising themselves when readings were high. Some participants continued to find readings difficult to interpret, with uncertainty about how to respond to high readings. Reassurance and habit were key reasons for continuing. There was little indication that participants were using self monitoring to effect and maintain behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical uncertainty about the efficacy and role of blood glucose self monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes is mirrored in patients' own accounts. Patients tended not to act on their self monitoring results, in part because of a lack of education about the appropriate response to readings. Health professionals should be explicit about whether and when such patients should self monitor and how they should interpret and act upon the results, especially high readings.

Consensus statement on self-monitoring in diabetes: Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada, November 14–16, 2006

This consensus statement was prepared by an independent panel of health professionals, academics, and public representatives based on (1) relevant published studies assembled by the Institute of Health Economics, (2) presentations by experts working in areas relevant to the conference questions, (3) presentations by people living with diabetes, (4) questions and comments from conference attendees during open discussion periods, and (5) closed deliberations by the panel. It is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the Institute of Health Economics or the Government of Alberta. This consensus statement reflects the panel's assessment of scientific knowledge available at the time the statement was written. The objectives of the panel are to develop a consensus statement on the benefits and costs of testing supplies for self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes, to inform patients, health policy, and practice.