Literature DB >> 28118453

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Roy W Beck1, Tonya Riddlesworth1, Katrina Ruedy1, Andrew Ahmann2, Richard Bergenstal3, Stacie Haller4, Craig Kollman1, Davida Kruger5, Janet B McGill6, William Polonsky7, Elena Toschi8, Howard Wolpert8, David Price9.   

Abstract

Importance: Previous clinical trials showing the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of type 1 diabetes predominantly have included adults using insulin pumps, even though the majority of adults with type 1 diabetes administer insulin by injection. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin injections. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted between October 2014 and May 2016 at 24 endocrinology practices in the United States that included 158 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily insulin injections and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9%. Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (control group; n = 53). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measure was the difference in change in central-laboratory-measured HbA1c level from baseline to 24 weeks. There were 18 secondary or exploratory end points, of which 15 are reported in this article, including duration of hypoglycemia at less than 70 mg/dL, measured with CGM for 7 days at 12 and 24 weeks.
Results: Among the 158 randomized participants (mean age, 48 years [SD, 13]; 44% women; mean baseline HbA1c level, 8.6% [SD, 0.6%]; and median diabetes duration, 19 years [interquartile range, 10-31 years]), 155 (98%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 93% used CGM 6 d/wk or more in month 6. Mean HbA1c reduction from baseline was 1.1% at 12 weeks and 1.0% at 24 weeks in the CGM group and 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, in the control group (repeated-measures model P < .001). At 24 weeks, the adjusted treatment-group difference in mean change in HbA1c level from baseline was -0.6% (95% CI, -0.8% to -0.3%; P < .001). Median duration of hypoglycemia at less than <70 mg/dL was 43 min/d (IQR, 27-69) in the CGM group vs 80 min/d (IQR, 36-111) in the control group (P = .002). Severe hypoglycemia events occurred in 2 participants in each group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with type 1 diabetes who used multiple daily insulin injections, the use of CGM compared with usual care resulted in a greater decrease in HbA1c level during 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess longer-term effectiveness, as well as clinical outcomes and adverse effects. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282397.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28118453     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.19975

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  255 in total

1.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool.

Authors:  Nicole Ehrhardt; Enas Al Zaghal
Journal:  Clin Diabetes       Date:  2020-04

2.  Evaluating Glucose Control With a Novel Composite Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index.

Authors:  Lalantha Leelarathna; Hood Thabit; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Lia Bally; Julia K Mader; Thomas R Pieber; Carsten Benesch; Sabine Arnolds; Terri Johnson; Lutz Heinemann; Norbert Hermanns; Mark L Evans; Roman Hovorka
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-03-31

3.  Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Wen Wan; M Reza Skandari; Alexa Minc; Aviva G Nathan; Parmida Zarei; Aaron N Winn; Michael O'Grady; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 4.  Use of Diabetes Technology in Children: Role of Structured Education for Young People with Diabetes and Families.

Authors:  Hannah R Desrochers; Alan T Schultz; Lori M Laffel
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.741

Review 5.  Benefits and Challenges of Diabetes Technology Use in Older Adults.

Authors:  Elena Toschi; Medha N Munshi
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 4.741

6.  Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Wen Wan; M Reza Skandari; Alexa Minc; Aviva G Nathan; Aaron Winn; Parmida Zarei; Michael O'Grady; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  The Fallacy of Average: How Using HbA1c Alone to Assess Glycemic Control Can Be Misleading.

Authors:  Roy W Beck; Crystal G Connor; Deborah M Mullen; David M Wesley; Richard M Bergenstal
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Rate of Change of Premeal Glucose Measured by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Predicts Postmeal Glycemic Excursions in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: Implications for Therapy.

Authors:  Amit R Majithia; Alexander B Wiltschko; Hui Zheng; Geoffrey A Walford; David M Nathan
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-09-04

9.  Baseline Psychosocial Characteristics Predict Frequency of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Dayna E McGill; Lisa K Volkening; Deborah A Butler; Kara R Harrington; Michelle L Katz; Lori M Laffel
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 6.118

10.  Accuracy of a Factory-Calibrated, Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System During 10 Days of Use in Youth and Adults with Diabetes.

Authors:  R Paul Wadwa; Lori M Laffel; Viral N Shah; Satish K Garg
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 6.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.