Richard M Bergenstal1, Mary Johnson2, Rebecca Passi2, Anuj Bhargava3, Natalie Young3, Davida F Kruger4, Eran Bashan5, Stanley G Bisgaier5, Deanna J Marriott Isaman6, Israel Hodish7. 1. International Diabetes Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: richard.bergenstal@parknicollet.com. 2. International Diabetes Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Iowa Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center, Des Moines, IA, USA. 4. Henry Ford Medical Center Endocrinology, Detroit, MI, USA. 5. Hygieia Inc, Livonia, MI, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 7. Hygieia Inc, Livonia, MI, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Insulin therapy is most effective if dosage titrations are done regularly and frequently, which is seldom practical for most clinicians, resulting in an insulin titration gap. The d-Nav Insulin Guidance System (Hygieia, Livonia, MI, USA) is a handheld device that is used to measure glucose, determine glucose patterns, and automatically determine the appropriate next insulin dose. We aimed to determine whether the combination of the d-Nav device and health-care professional support is superior to health-care professional support alone. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled study, we recruited patients from three diabetes centres in the USA (in Detroit MI; Minneapolis, MN; and Des Moines IA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 21-70 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 7·5% or higher (≥58 mmol/mol) and 11% or lower (≤97 mmol/mol), and had been using the same insulin regimen for the previous 3 months. Exclusion criteria included body-mass index of 45 kg/m2 or higher; severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal impairment; and more than two severe hypoglycaemic events in the past year. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), with randomisation blocked within each site, to either d-Nav and health-care professional support (intervention group) or health-care professional support alone (control group). Both groups were contacted seven times (three face-to-face and four phone visits) during 6 months of follow-up. The primary objective was to compare average change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. The primary objective and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical significance. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02424500. FINDINGS:Between Feb 2, 2015, and March 17, 2017, 236 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 181 (77%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=93) and control (n=88) groups. At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8·7% (SD 0·8; 72 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the intervention group and 8·5% (SD 0·8; 69 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the control group. The mean decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was 1·0% (SD 1·0; 11 mmol/mol [SD 11]) in the intervention group, and 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [9·9]) in the control group (p<0·0001). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events per month was similar between the groups (0·29 events per month [SD 0·48] in the intervention group vs 0·29 [SD 1·12] in the control group; p=0·96). INTERPRETATION: The combination of automated insulin titration guidance with support from health-care professionals offers superior glycaemic control compared with support from health-care professionals alone. Such a solution facilitated safe and effective insulin titration in a large group of patients with type 2 diabetes, and now needs to be evaluated across large health-care systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Insulin therapy is most effective if dosage titrations are done regularly and frequently, which is seldom practical for most clinicians, resulting in an insulin titration gap. The d-NavInsulin Guidance System (Hygieia, Livonia, MI, USA) is a handheld device that is used to measure glucose, determine glucose patterns, and automatically determine the appropriate next insulin dose. We aimed to determine whether the combination of the d-Nav device and health-care professional support is superior to health-care professional support alone. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled study, we recruited patients from three diabetes centres in the USA (in Detroit MI; Minneapolis, MN; and Des Moines IA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 21-70 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 7·5% or higher (≥58 mmol/mol) and 11% or lower (≤97 mmol/mol), and had been using the same insulin regimen for the previous 3 months. Exclusion criteria included body-mass index of 45 kg/m2 or higher; severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal impairment; and more than two severe hypoglycaemic events in the past year. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), with randomisation blocked within each site, to either d-Nav and health-care professional support (intervention group) or health-care professional support alone (control group). Both groups were contacted seven times (three face-to-face and four phone visits) during 6 months of follow-up. The primary objective was to compare average change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. The primary objective and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical significance. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02424500. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2015, and March 17, 2017, 236 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 181 (77%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=93) and control (n=88) groups. At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8·7% (SD 0·8; 72 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the intervention group and 8·5% (SD 0·8; 69 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the control group. The mean decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was 1·0% (SD 1·0; 11 mmol/mol [SD 11]) in the intervention group, and 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [9·9]) in the control group (p<0·0001). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events per month was similar between the groups (0·29 events per month [SD 0·48] in the intervention group vs 0·29 [SD 1·12] in the control group; p=0·96). INTERPRETATION: The combination of automated insulin titration guidance with support from health-care professionals offers superior glycaemic control compared with support from health-care professionals alone. Such a solution facilitated safe and effective insulin titration in a large group of patients with type 2 diabetes, and now needs to be evaluated across large health-care systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Authors: M Schütt; W Kern; U Krause; P Busch; A Dapp; R Grziwotz; I Mayer; J Rosenbauer; C Wagner; A Zimmermann; W Kerner; R W Holl Journal: Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.949
Authors: William H Herman; Liza L Ilag; Susan L Johnson; Catherine L Martin; Joyce Sinding; Abdulaziz Al Harthi; Cynthia D Plunkett; Frankie B LaPorte; Ray Burke; Morton B Brown; Jeffery B Halter; Philip Raskin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rury R Holman; Kerensa I Thorne; Andrew J Farmer; Melanie J Davies; Joanne F Keenan; Sanjoy Paul; Jonathan C Levy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-09-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rury R Holman; Andrew J Farmer; Melanie J Davies; Jonathan C Levy; Julie L Darbyshire; Joanne F Keenan; Sanjoy K Paul Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John B Buse; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; William H Herman; Natalie K Shemonsky; Honghua H Jiang; Jessie L Fahrbach; Jamie L Scism-Bacon; Sherry A Martin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; Mary Johnson; Margaret A Powers; Alan Wynne; Aleksandra Vlajnic; Priscilla Hollander; Marc Rendell Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Lori M Laffel; Robert H Slover; Desmond Schatz; Stuart A Weinzimer; Klemen Dovc; Thomas Danne; Moshe Phillip Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; B Wayne Bequette; Jennifer K Raymond; Gerard Coté; Jennifer L Sherr; Jessica Castle; John Pickup; Yarmela Pavlovic; Juan Espinoza; Laurel H Messer; Tim Heise; Carlos E Mendez; Sarah Kim; Barry H Ginsberg; Umesh Masharani; Rodolfo J Galindo; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-07