Literature DB >> 30036082

The Effect of Reduced Self-Monitored Blood Glucose Testing After Adoption of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hemoglobin A1c and Time in Range.

Sarah Puhr1, Peter Calhoun1, John B Welsh1, Tomas C Walker1.   

Abstract

The effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in adults with diabetes treated with insulin injections was evaluated in the 24-week DIAMOND clinical trial comparing rtCGM users to a control group using self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) testing ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02282397). All participants were instructed to use SMBG results for diabetes management decisions; however, SMBG testing frequency varied within the rtCGM group. This brief report evaluated how SMBG frequency changes in the rtCGM group were correlated with glycemic outcomes in the same trial. Baseline and end-of-study hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, percentages of CGM values in the 70-180 mg/dL target range (time in range [TIR]), mean of daily differences (MODD), and glycemic coefficients of variation (CVs) were compared. The rtCGM group analyzed included 175 participants-99 with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 76 with type 2 diabetes (T2D). When comparing participants whose SMBG testing frequency decreased by >1/day versus ≤1/day, mean change in HbA1c was similar (-0.9 ± 0.7 percentage points in both groups, P = 0.59), as was change in TIR (+3.9 ± 14.3 vs. +5.7 ± 13.7 percentage points, respectively, P = 0.39). Likewise, when comparing participants in the highest and lowest quartiles of SMBG frequency reduction (≥2.2 vs. ≤0.4 fewer tests/day, respectively), changes in HbA1c (-0.8 ± 0.6 vs. -0.9 ± 0.6 percentage points, respectively, P = 0.52) and TIR (+4.8 ± 13.2 vs. +5.6 ± 12.7 percentage points, respectively, P = 0.98) were similar. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) change in MODD was -8.3 mg/dL (14.8) and -5.5 mg/dL (14.7) for participants who reduced their SMBG frequency by >1 test/day and ≤1 test/day, respectively; the mean (SD) change in CV was -3.6% (5.0) and -1.6% (5.1) for participants who reduced their SMBG frequency by >1 test/day and ≤1 test/day, respectively. These findings suggest that individuals who decrease the frequency of SMBG testing can effectively base some of their diabetes-related treatment decisions on glucose concentrations, trend information, and alarms provided by their rtCGM systems.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CGM; Glycemic control; HbA1c; SMBG reduction; nonadjunctive

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30036082     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2018.0134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  5 in total

Review 1.  Digital Health: Opportunities and Challenges to Develop the Next-Generation Technology-Enabled Models of Cardiovascular Care.

Authors:  Sanjeev P Bhavnani
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Oct-Dec

Review 2.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring Integration in Clinical Practice: A Stepped Guide to Data Review and Interpretation.

Authors:  Grazia Aleppo; Kimberly Webb
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-19

3.  A fluorescence sandwich immunoassay for the real-time continuous detection of glucose and insulin in live animals.

Authors:  Mahla Poudineh; Caitlin L Maikawa; Eric Yue Ma; Jing Pan; Dan Mamerow; Yan Hang; Sam W Baker; Ahmad Beirami; Alex Yoshikawa; Michael Eisenstein; Seung Kim; Jelena Vučković; Eric A Appel; H Tom Soh
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 25.671

4.  Effects of Variability in Glycemic Indices on Longevity in Chinese Centenarians.

Authors:  Sheng-Han Ji; Chen Dong; Rou Chen; Chen-Chen Shen; Jing Xiao; Yun-Juan Gu; Jian-Lin Gao
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-07-08

Review 5.  Design Considerations for Macroencapsulation Devices for Stem Cell Derived Islets for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Debkalpa Goswami; Daniel A Domingo-Lopez; Niamh A Ward; Jeffrey R Millman; Garry P Duffy; Eimear B Dolan; Ellen T Roche
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 16.806

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.