OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term effectiveness of the Internet-based glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 80 patients with type 2 diabetes for 30 months. The intervention group was treated with the IBGMS, while the control group made conventional office visits only. HbA1c (A1C) was performed at 3-month intervals. For measuring of the stability of glucose control, the SD value of A1C levels for each subject was used as the A1C fluctuation index (HFI). RESULTS: The mean A1C and HFI were significantly lower in the intervention group (n = 40) than in the control group (n = 40). (A1C [mean +/- SD] 6.9 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.5 +/- 1.0%, P = 0.009; HFI 0.47 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.78 +/- 0.51, P = 0.001; intervention versus control groups, respectively). Patients in the intervention group with a basal A1C >or=7% (n = 27) had markedly lower A1C levels than corresponding patients in the control group during the first 3 months and maintained more stable levels throughout the study (P = 0.022). Control patients with a basal A1C <7% (n = 15) showed the characteristic bimodal distribution of A1C levels, whereas the A1C levels in the intervention group remained stable throughout the study with low HFI. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of the IBGMS has proven to be superior to conventional diabetes care systems based on office visits for controlling blood glucose and achieving glucose stability.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term effectiveness of the Internet-based glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 80 patients with type 2 diabetes for 30 months. The intervention group was treated with the IBGMS, while the control group made conventional office visits only. HbA1c (A1C) was performed at 3-month intervals. For measuring of the stability of glucose control, the SD value of A1C levels for each subject was used as the A1C fluctuation index (HFI). RESULTS: The mean A1C and HFI were significantly lower in the intervention group (n = 40) than in the control group (n = 40). (A1C [mean +/- SD] 6.9 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.5 +/- 1.0%, P = 0.009; HFI 0.47 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.78 +/- 0.51, P = 0.001; intervention versus control groups, respectively). Patients in the intervention group with a basal A1C >or=7% (n = 27) had markedly lower A1C levels than corresponding patients in the control group during the first 3 months and maintained more stable levels throughout the study (P = 0.022). Control patients with a basal A1C <7% (n = 15) showed the characteristic bimodal distribution of A1C levels, whereas the A1C levels in the intervention group remained stable throughout the study with low HFI. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of the IBGMS has proven to be superior to conventional diabetes care systems based on office visits for controlling blood glucose and achieving glucose stability.
Authors: M Elena Hernando; Mario Pascual; Carlos H Salvador; Gema García-Sáez; Agustín Rodríguez-Herrero; Iñaki Martínez-Sarriegui; Enrique J Gómez Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-09
Authors: Mariëlle G A Roek; Laura M C Welschen; Piet J Kostense; Jacqueline M Dekker; Frank J Snoek; Giel Nijpels Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 2.497