BACKGROUND:Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) improves hemoglobinA1c (A1C) and hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on prandial insulin; however, it has not been tested in people with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. We evaluated the utility of RT-CGM in people with T2DM on a variety of treatment modalities except prandial insulin. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, 52-week, two-arm, randomized trial comparing RT-CGM (n = 50) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) (n = 50) in people with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring was used for four 2-week cycles (2 weeks on/1 week off). All patients were managed by their usual provider. This article reports on changes in A1C 0-12 weeks. RESULTS:Mean (± standard deviation) decline in A1C at 12 weeks was 1.0% (± 1.1%) in the RT-CGM group and 0.5% (± 0.8%) in the SMBG group (p = .006). There were no group differences in the net change in number or dosage of hypoglycemic medications. Those who used the RT-CGM for ≥ 48 days (per protocol) reduced their A1C by 1.2% (± 1.1%) versus 0.6% (± 1.1%) in those who used it <48 days (p = .003). Multiple regression analyses statistically adjusting for baseline A1C, an indicator for usage, and known confounders confirmed the observed differences between treatment groups were robust (p = .009). There was no improvement in weight or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:Real-time continuous glucose monitoring significantly improves A1C compared with SMBG in patients with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. This technology might benefit a wider population of people with diabetes than previously thought.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) improves hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on prandial insulin; however, it has not been tested in people with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. We evaluated the utility of RT-CGM in people with T2DM on a variety of treatment modalities except prandial insulin. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, 52-week, two-arm, randomized trial comparing RT-CGM (n = 50) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) (n = 50) in people with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring was used for four 2-week cycles (2 weeks on/1 week off). All patients were managed by their usual provider. This article reports on changes in A1C 0-12 weeks. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) decline in A1C at 12 weeks was 1.0% (± 1.1%) in the RT-CGM group and 0.5% (± 0.8%) in the SMBG group (p = .006). There were no group differences in the net change in number or dosage of hypoglycemic medications. Those who used the RT-CGM for ≥ 48 days (per protocol) reduced their A1C by 1.2% (± 1.1%) versus 0.6% (± 1.1%) in those who used it <48 days (p = .003). Multiple regression analyses statistically adjusting for baseline A1C, an indicator for usage, and known confounders confirmed the observed differences between treatment groups were robust (p = .009). There was no improvement in weight or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring significantly improves A1C compared with SMBG in patients with T2DM not taking prandial insulin. This technology might benefit a wider population of people with diabetes than previously thought.
Authors: Laura M C Welschen; Evelien Bloemendal; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline M Dekker; Robert J Heine; Wim A B Stalman; Lex M Bouter Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Andrew Farmer; Alisha Wade; Elizabeth Goyder; Patricia Yudkin; David French; Anthea Craven; Rury Holman; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Andrew Neil Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-06-25
Authors: William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William H Polonsky; Lawrence Fisher; Charles H Schikman; Deborah A Hinnen; Christopher G Parkin; Zhihong Jelsovsky; Bettina Petersen; Matthias Schweitzer; Robin S Wagner Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stamatina Zavitsanou; Jennifer Massa; Sunil Deshpande; Jordan E Pinsker; Mei Mei Church; Camille Andre; Francis J Doyle Iii; Alicia Michelson; Jamie Creason; Eyal Dassau; David M Eisenberg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: John R Petrie; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Reinhard W Holl; G Alexander Fleming; Lutz Heinemann Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 10.122