Literature DB >> 34077499

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Thomas Martens1, Roy W Beck2, Ryan Bailey2, Katrina J Ruedy2, Peter Calhoun2, Anne L Peters3, Rodica Pop-Busui4, Athena Philis-Tsimikas5, Shichun Bao6, Guillermo Umpierrez7, Georgia Davis7, Davida Kruger8, Anuj Bhargava9, Laura Young10, Janet B McGill11, Grazia Aleppo12, Quang T Nguyen13, Ian Orozco14, William Biggs15, K Jean Lucas16, William H Polonsky17, John B Buse10, David Price18, Richard M Bergenstal19.   

Abstract

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months.
Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03566693.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34077499      PMCID: PMC8173473          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7444

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


  20 in total

1.  What's the Risk? A simple approach for estimating adjusted risk measures from nonlinear models including logistic regression.

Authors:  Lawrence C Kleinman; Edward C Norton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  An Evaluation of Two Capillary Sample Collection Kits for Laboratory Measurement of HbA1c.

Authors:  Roy W Beck; Laura E Bocchino; John W Lum; Craig Kollman; Victoria Barnes-Lomen; Mark Sulik; Michael J Haller; Bruce Bode; Joseph T Cernich; Anthony A Killeen; Uttam Garg; David Liljenquist; Janey G Adams; Margaret Clements; Deanna Gabrielson; Terri Johnson; Mark A Clements
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 6.118

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

Authors:  Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Patterns, Policy and Appropriateness: A 12-Year Utilization Review of Blood Glucose Test Strip Use in Insulin Users.

Authors:  Jamie Falk; Kevin J Friesen; Anuoluwapo Okunnu; Shawn Bugden
Journal:  Can J Diabetes       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 4.190

5.  Intensified blood glucose monitoring improves glycemic control in stable, insulin-treated veterans with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes Outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES).

Authors:  Glen H Murata; Jayendra H Shah; Richard M Hoffman; Christopher S Wendel; Karen D Adam; Patricia A Solvas; Syed U Bokhari; William C Duckworth
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the diabetes control and complications trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 9.461

7.  Evaluation of the Cascade of Diabetes Care in the United States, 2005-2016.

Authors:  Pooyan Kazemian; Fatma M Shebl; Nicole McCann; Rochelle P Walensky; Deborah J Wexler
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Trends in Insulin Use and Diabetes Control in the U.S.: 1988-1994 and 1999-2012.

Authors:  Elizabeth Selvin; Christina M Parrinello; Natalie Daya; Richard M Bergenstal
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 9.  International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; J Hans DeVries; Satish Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl Hirsch; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce Buckingham; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Simon Heller; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Tim Jones; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; David Maahs; Helen R Murphy; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; Banshi Saboo; Mauro Scharf; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Glycaemic profiles of diverse patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin: MOBILE study baseline data.

Authors:  Anne Peters; Nathan Cohen; Peter Calhoun; Katrina J Ruedy; Roy W Beck; Thomas W Martens; Shichun Bao; Nelly M Njeru; Stayce E Beck; David A Price
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 6.577

View more
  24 in total

1.  Virtual visits and the use of continuous glucose monitoring for diabetes care in the era of COVID-19.

Authors:  Patricia Underwood; Jennifer Hibben; Jolynn Gibson; Monica DiNardo
Journal:  J Am Assoc Nurse Pract       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 1.165

Review 2.  The spectrum of diabetes in acute and chronic pancreatitis.

Authors:  Søren S Olesen; Frederico G S Toledo; Phil A Hart
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 3.  Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

Authors:  Melanie J Davies; Vanita R Aroda; Billy S Collins; Robert A Gabbay; Jennifer Green; Nisa M Maruthur; Sylvia E Rosas; Stefano Del Prato; Chantal Mathieu; Geltrude Mingrone; Peter Rossing; Tsvetalina Tankova; Apostolos Tsapas; John B Buse
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 10.460

Review 4.  Diabetes: the role of continuous glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Julianna Rivich Kluemper; Alexandria Smith; Brooke Wobeter
Journal:  Drugs Context       Date:  2022-06-14

5.  Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin.

Authors:  Shichun Bao; Ryan Bailey; Peter Calhoun; Roy W Beck
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 7.337

6.  Hypoglycemic and Hyperglycemic Crises Among U.S. Adults With Diabetes and End-stage Kidney Disease: Population-Based Study, 2013-2017.

Authors:  Rodolfo J Galindo; Mohammed K Ali; Shealeigh A Funni; Andrew B Dodge; Shaheen S Kurani; Nilay D Shah; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Rozalina G McCoy
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 17.152

7.  Cost-Effectiveness of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy in the UK.

Authors:  John J Isitt; Stéphane Roze; Helen Sharland; Greg Cogswell; Hamza Alshannaq; Gregory J Norman; Peter M Lynch
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 3.595

8.  Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Support Self-Care: Results from a Pilot Study of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Michael Porter; Stephanie Fonda; Tamara Swigert; Nicole Ehrhardt
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-10-25

9.  Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes.

Authors:  Satish K Garg; Mark Kipnes; Kristin Castorino; Timothy S Bailey; Halis Kaan Akturk; John B Welsh; Mark P Christiansen; Andrew K Balo; Sue A Brown; Jennifer L Reid; Stayce E Beck
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 7.337

10.  Continuous Glucose Monitor Use Prevents Glycemic Deterioration in Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Andrew J Karter; Melissa M Parker; Howard H Moffet; Lisa K Gilliam; Richard Dlott
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 7.337

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.