Use Of Self-monitoring Of Blood Glucose Research Articles

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring provides no benefit over structured self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes not on prandial insulin, in the context of diabetes self-management education: GLucose monitoring programme SingaporE (GLiMPSE)

ObjectiveWe evaluated the impact of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring(is-CGM)over self-monitoring of blood glucose(SMBG) in the context of diabetes self-management education (DSME) in sub-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes(T2D) in a multi-ethnicsetting. Research Design and MethodRandomized-controlled, open-label trial (NCT04564911), of T2D with HbA1c ≥ 7.5-≤10 %, on oral agents with/without basal insulin was carried out. Intervention arm received 6 weeks(w) continuous is-CGM, followed by one is-CGM/month till 24w. Control arm was advised to perform 4 SMBG/day. Educationwas delivered at weeks 0, 2, 8, 16. Primary outcome: Change in HbA1c from baseline at 24w. Modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis with linear mixed-effect model for repeated measurementswas performed. Results176 subjects, age 55 ± 10.7 years(y), DM duration 11 ± 7.3y, BMI 27.8 ± 5.9 kg/m2, 58 % Male, 29.5 % basal insulin users were analysed. Within each arm,from baseline to 24w, mean HbA1c decreasedby −0.6 % (−6.6.mmol/mol, p-value < 0.01)and weight decreased(isCGM: −1.44 kg; SMBG: −1.25 kg, both p < 0.01). These changes were sustained to one year. However, there wasno significant difference in these parameters between arms (p-value > 0.05). ConclusionIn the context of DSME, use of either SMBG or is-CGM led to improved glycaemia and reduced weight over a period of 24 weeks, sustained to one year.

Impact of Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose on Glycaemic Control Among Insulin-Treated Patients With Diabetes Mellitus in Northeastern Tanzania: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Tracking of blood glucose levels by patients and care providers remains an integral component in the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). Evidence, primarily from high-income countries, has illustrated the effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in controlling DM. However, there is limited data on the feasibility and impact of SMBG among patients in the rural regions of sub-Saharan Africa. This study is aimed at assessing SMBG, its adherence, and associated factors on the effect of glycaemic control among insulin-treated patients with DM in northeastern Tanzania. Materials and Methods: This was a single-blinded, randomised clinical trial conducted from December 2022 to May 2023. The study included patients with DM who had already been on insulin treatment for at least 3 months. A total of 85 participants were recruited into the study and categorised into the intervention and control groups by a simple randomization method using numbered envelopes. The intervention group received glucose metres, test strips, logbooks, and extensive SMBG training. The control group received the usual care at the outpatient clinic. Each participant was followed for a period of 12 weeks, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) being checked both at the beginning and at the end of the study follow-up. The primary and secondary outcomes were adherence to the SMBG schedule, barriers associated with the use of SMBG, and the ability to self-manage DM, logbook data recording, and change in HbA1c. The analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and logistic regression. Results: Eighty participants were analysed: 39 in the intervention group and 41 in the control group. In the intervention group, 24 (61.5%) of patients displayed favourable adherence to SMBG, as evidenced by tests documented in the logbooks and glucometer readings. Education on SMBG was significantly associated with adherence. Structured SMBG improved glycaemic control with a HbA1c reduction of -1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39, -0.63) in the intervention group within 3 months from baseline compared to controls of 0.18 (95% CI -0.07, 0.44) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Structured SMBG positively impacted glycaemic control among insulin-treated patients with DM in the outpatient clinic. The results suggest that implementing a structured testing programme can lead to significant reductions in HbA1c and FBG levels. Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry identifier: PACTR202402642155729.

An Observational Crossover Study of People Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitors Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: Real-World Evidence Using EMR Data From More Than 12,000 People With Type 1 Diabetes.

We used real-world electronic health record (EHR) data to examine HbA1c levels among children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are classified as continuous glucose monitor (CGM) users after T1D diagnosis and switch to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) during follow-up, versus people who opt for SMBG after T1D diagnosis and switch to CGM during follow-up visits. We conducted an observational, case-crossover study using electronic medical record (EMR) data from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The primary outcome in this study was HbA1c. Baseline HbA1c levels were taken at the index date, corresponding to initial device classification, and compared with HbA1c value recorded at the clinic visit following device switch. Of all patients classified in the SMBG group, 7,706 switched to CGM use within the 5-year study time frame, and 5,123 of all initial CGM users switched to SMBG within the study time frame and were included in this analysis. At baseline, median (interquartile range [IQR]) HbA1c for SMBG use was 8.1 (2.4), whereas postcrossover to CGM use, there was a decline in median (IQR) levels to 7.7 (1.9) (P < .001). For baseline CGM users, median (IQR) HbA1c levels were 7.9 (2.0), and postcrossover to SMBG, median (IQR) HbA1c levels increased to 8.0 (2.9) (P < .001). We found that people who switched to CGM use had significantly improved HbA1c levels compared to those who switched to glucose monitoring with SMBG.

679-P: Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of the FreeStyle Libre System vs. Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 on MDI Insulin Treatment in Israel

Introduction: Frequent glucose monitoring is essential to obtaining glucose control. We assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of using the FreeStyle Libre® Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring system (FSL) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (T2D MDI) from a healthcare payer perspective in Israel. Methods: We calculated the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Glucose monitoring costs are based on actual costs of FreeStyle Libre®, strips and lancets, assuming full adherence to monitoring. Severe hypoglycemic events (SHE) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) costs are based on real-world data from Israel and the Israeli Ministry of Health list price. Costs are presented in Israeli Shekel (ILS) and $US. The incidence rates of SHE and DKA are based on real-world data from a large cohort of patients in France. Due to the short time horizon of this analysis, we assumed no mortality differences between the two monitoring alternatives. Utility increments for the use of CGM vs. SMBG, decrease in HbA1C and disutility for SHE and DKA events are based on estimates from the literature. The analysis was conducted over a 5-year time horizon, applying an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and outcomes. One way sensitivity analyses were performed on difference in costs. Results: FreeStyle Libre® use is associated with a cost increase of ILS 27,021 ($US 8,444) and an increase of 0.26 QALYs, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ILS 103,977 ($US 32,493) per QALY gained. These results are highly sensitive to changes in costs of glucose monitoring. Conclusion: Assuming a willingness to pay threshold of $US 43,600 per QALY gained (GDP per capita in Israel in 2020) , the FreeStyle Libre® system is a highly cost-effective glucose monitoring alternative to SMBG for T2D MDI patients in Israel. Disclosure D.Greenberg: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Consultant; Geffen Medical, Israel.

Real-World Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Reduced Burden, but Little Interest in Data Analysis.

Since 2016, German health insurance companies reimburse continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for persons with insulin-dependent diabetes, leading to a tremendous increase of CGM use. This study assessed the use of CGM, the satisfaction with, and the data analysis behavior among young people. During a diabetes camp for young people from all over Germany, participants anonymously answered a questionnaire on their method of glucose monitoring, satisfaction and quality of CGM use, HbA1c, and diabetes distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale [PAID]-5). A total of 308 participants (age 21.4 ± 3.5 years; 73% female; diabetes duration 10.1 ± 5.9 years) completed the questionnaire. Approximately, 25% used self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), 46% intermittent-scanning continuous glucose monitoring (iscCGM), and 30% real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM). Mean HbA1c was slightly, but not significantly, higher among SMBG users compared with CGM users (8.0% ± 1.9% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .791). Diabetes distress was not associated with the method of glucose monitoring (SMBG 5.6 vs. iscCGM 6.2 vs. rtCGM 6.5; P = .386). Overall, satisfaction with CGM use was very high; 98% of the CGM users reported better well-being with CGM compared with previous SMBG use. Only 19% of CGM users reported regular data analyses; their HbA1c was lower compared with other CGM users (7.2% ± 1.2% vs. 7.7% ± 1.4%; P = .039). In this large sample of young people, 75% were using a CGM system. Treatment satisfaction was very high, but CGM use was not associated with reduced diabetes distress or better glycemic control. However, young people who regularly analyzed their CGM data reported lower HbA1c levels.

POSA294 Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been shown effectiveness among patients with type 2 diabetes. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize available published data regarding the use of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Effects of physician's diabetes self-management education using Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care Diabetes Education Card System Program and a self-monitoring of blood glucose readings analyzer in individuals with type 2 diabetes: An exploratory, open-labeled, prospective randomized clinical trial.

Aims/IntroductionThis 6‐month, single‐center, prospective, open‐labeled, randomized trial was designed to investigate whether physicians’ diabetes self‐management education using an education tool developed by the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care and a self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) analyzer improves glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin and SMBG.Materials and MethodsParticipants were randomized into intervention (I) and control (C) groups. Both groups received physicians’ diabetes self‐management education at each hospital visit, whereas the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care education tool and the SMBG readings analyzer was used in group I, but not group C. All participants filled out a diabetes treatment‐related quality of life form and an original questionnaire on SMBG use with five questions (Q1–Q5) before and after the study period.ResultsA total of 76 individuals were recruited and randomized. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly improved during the study period in group I, whereas no significant change was observed in group C. The change in HbA1c was greater in group I, although it did not reach statistical significance. The diabetes treatment‐related quality of life total score was not changed in either group. Interestingly, the score of Q1 (“How important is SMBG to you?”) in the SMBG questionnaire was unchanged in group I, whereas it was significantly decreased in group C. HbA1c change was independently associated with changes in insulin dose and SMBG Q1 score.ConclusionGreater HbA1c‐lowering by physicians’ diabetes self‐management education using the Japan Association of Diabetes Education and Care education tool and SMBG analyzer in individuals with type 2 diabetes receiving insulin and SMBG was suggested, but not confirmed.

Proportion and predictors of SMBG use among type 2 diabetic subjects in three tertiary care hospitals in Dhaka City

AimsThe aim was to find out the proportion of Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) Users and factors affecting the nonuse in three large hospitals of Dhaka city. MethodsUnder an observational cross-sectional design 598 type 2 diabetic subjects were recruited (convenient sampling) from the OPDs of 3 large tertiary care hospitals [one public hospital (PUBH), one Not-for-profit Hospital (NFPPH), and one For-profit private hospital (FPPH)] in Dhaka City. Data were analyzed by both univariate and multivariate analysis as appropriate. ResultsOverall 71% of subjects were SMBG Nonusers (PUBH 86%, NFPPH 67%, and FPPH 46%). Monthly income status and advice showed the highest impact (OR 4.66 and 3.74 respectively) on the use. Physicians (54%), relatives (34%), and friends (8.2%) were the major sources of advice. Irregular diabetes check-up and distrust of results were also among the major reasons for not using SMBG among the Nonusers. ConclusionNearly three-fourth of type 2 diabetic patients in Dhaka city do not use SMBG and the proportion is especially high in public hospitals. Poor income status of patients, lack of coordinated advice/motivation by Caregivers, irregularity in diabetes checking, and distrust on results are major predictors for not using SMBG by the patients.

Glucometers for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Are they helpful?

Background: The effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients is debated in the literature. We aimed at elucidating the association and patterns of complications between SMBG use and plasma glucose values.&#x0D; Methods: This cross-sectional study comprised 303 participants from outpatient departments with T2DM for over 12 months. We analyzed sociodemographic and clinical variables including: anthropometry, SMBG use, disease duration, treatment modality, complications, plasma glucose level, and glycated hemoglobin level (%).&#x0D; Results: The mean duration of T2DM was 93±76 months. Participants were grouped into SMBG users (n=115, 38%) and non-SMBG users (n=188, 62%). The mean fasting plasma glucose levels of SMBG and non-SMBG users were 140.7±42.7 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 132.72;148.67) mg/dl and 145.4±50 (95%CI: 138.12;152.67) mg/dl (p=0.03), respectively. The mean post-prandial plasma glucose levels of the SMBG and non-SMBG groups were 202±63.42 (95%CI: 190.23;213.76) mg/dl and 209±84.54 (95%CI: 196.56;221.43) mg/dl (p=0.002), respectively. The mean difference in HbA1c among the groups were 8.14±1.69% (95%CI: 7.59;8.68) and 8.15±1.98% (95%CI: 7.27;9.02) (p=0.4), respectively. Hypoglycemia (n=50, 43.5%) was the most common complication. The prevalence of neuropathy (n=5, 4.3%, p=0.036) and cardiovascular disease (n=21, 18.3%, p=0.042) were significantly higher in the SMBG group.&#x0D; Conclusion: Although plasma glucose values were significantly lower in the SMBG group, its clinical significance remains questionable. Furthermore, many participants in both the groups had shortfalls in awareness, monitoring, and glycemic control. SMBG use needs to be evaluated in a cohort of patients with T2DM with adequate health awareness.

Acceptability and Utilization of Newer Technologies and Effects on Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes: Lessons Learned from Lockdown.

Aim: To evaluate the effects of a prolonged lockdown due to Coronavirus (COVID-19) on the adoption of newer technologies and changes in glycemic control on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in India. Methods: The study population included a random list of 3000 individuals with T2D derived from 30,748 individuals who had visited a large tertiary diabetes center during the past year. The survey was carried out through a telephonic interview. A structured questionnaire was used to collect information on changes in lifestyle, access and challenges to diabetes care and use of technologies such as telemedicine facilities and use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), etc. Results: Of the 2510 individuals successfully interviewed (83.7% response rate), 382 (15.2%) reported having attempted to consult their health care providers during the lockdown, of whom only 30.6% utilized the telemedicine facility. However, 96 (82%) of those who utilized the telemedicine facility (n = 117) were happy with their experience and 68 (58.1%) were willing to continue to use the facility in the future. Only 11.4% of participants utilized online support for management of diabetes. Use of SMBG increased significantly from 15.5% to 51.3% during the lockdown. There was an improvement in glycemic control during the lockdown (HbA1c:before vs. during lockdown: 8.2% ± 1.9% vs. 7.7% ± 1.7%, P < 0.001) in a nonrandomly selected subset of subjects (n = 205). Conclusions: Acceptance of telemedicine facilities remains suboptimal in this Asian Indian population, in spite of high levels of satisfaction among those who utilized it. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown have not adversely affected metabolic control in our patients, and indeed there appears to be an improvement in HbA1c levels. Greater accessibility and acceptance of technology could help individuals with diabetes to maintain better contact with their physicians and ensure better metabolic control in the future.

Blood glucose meters and test strips: Global market and challenges to access in low-resource settings

Summary Blood glucose meters and test strips for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) are often inaccessible to, and infrequently used by, people with diabetes in countries with limited resources for health care. Supplies for measuring blood glucose can also be scarce in health facilities, despite being needed in a myriad of clinical settings at all levels of the health system. Numerous studies and international guidelines emphasise the value of SMBG in diabetes care, particularly in people with type 1 diabetes. In this Review, we assess global access to blood glucose meters and test strips, collating published information on cost, availability, system accuracy, competitive bidding, technological trends, and non-financial barriers. We also provide new information on global market share data and prices, taxes and tariffs, and product availability. Blood glucose meters and test strips should be viewed similarly to essential medicines, with issues of access prioritised by relevant international agencies. Efforts are needed to reduce tariffs and taxes and to create unified global system accuracy requirements and accountable post-marketing evaluations. Preferential pricing arrangements, pooled procurement, and best-purchasing practices could help to lower direct costs. SMBG supplies should also be included in national health insurance schemes. Enhanced diabetes education of health professionals and patients is crucial to ensure effective use of SMBG. Finally, as technology advances for people who can afford new interstitial fluid glucose monitoring systems, blood glucose meters and test strips must remain available and become more affordable in low-resource settings.

Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) in Youth with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) in the TODAY Study

Objective: Determine if SMBG increased after starting insulin in T2D youth with poor glycemic control in the TODAY study. Methods: Youth with recent onset T2D (n=699) were randomized to receive metformin ± rosiglitazone (rosi) or intensive lifestyle. They were asked to perform SMBG daily (supplies provided). When they reached primary outcome (PO; A1c ≥8% over 6 mon or inability to wean from temporary insulin due to metabolic decompensation), metformin (not rosi) was continued, daily insulin glargine started; dosing was intensified as needed. A1c and SMBG data for 2 year before and after PO were analyzed. SMBG% was defined as percent of days between visits when the meter was used ≥1 time. Results: Of 319 youth who reached PO, 298 started insulin and 282 had SMBG data. At PO, mean (SD) age was 15.8±2.3 year, 65.3% female, 38.3% non-Hispanic black, 16.3% Hispanic, 7.1% non-Hispanic white, BMI 35.5±7.9 kg/m2, and A1c 9.6±2.0%. Median SMBG% was 40% at PO which increased to 49% at 6 mo and fell to 41% at 1 year; 22% of youth tested ≥80% of days at PO, which increased to 25% at 6 mo and fell to 19% at 1 year. Compared with those who tested &amp;lt;80% at PO, youth who tested ≥80% were younger, with lower BMI and A1c. Use of SMBG was associated with ≥1% reduction in A1c at 6 and 1 year after insulin initiation (Figure). Conclusion: Adherence to SMBG was poor but associated with lower A1c. Research is needed on interventions to help youth with T2D reach A1c goals. Disclosure R.S. Weinstock: Research Support; Self; Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Mylan, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Calibra Medical, Dexcom, Inc., Ultradian Diagnostics LLC., JAEB Center For Health Research, JDRF, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. B. Braffett: None. C.L. Chan: None. N.T. Chang: None. M.W. Haymond: Advisory Panel; Self; Zealand Pharma A/S. Other Relationship; Self; Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. B. Schwartzman: None.

Mental distress and health-related quality of life among type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients using self-monitoring of blood glucose: A cross-sectional questionnaire study in Japan.

Aims/IntroductionThe present multicenter, cross‐sectional survey was initiated to evaluate self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)‐associated mental distress among patients with diabetes.Materials and MethodsThe survey was carried out in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes using SMBG recruited from 42 medical institutions. Profiles of Mood States 2 and diabetes therapy‐related quality of life questionnaires were used to evaluate mood status and health‐related quality of life. Two original questionnaires were also developed to evaluate SMBG ‘importance,’ ‘painfulness’ and ‘confidence’ among patients, and to evaluate physician attitudes to SMBG use.ResultsQuestionnaires from 517 type 1 diabetes and 1,648 type 2 diabetes patients showed that 46.0% of type 1 diabetes and 37.5% of type 2 diabetes patients reported ‘painfulness,’ and that these patients reporting ‘painfulness’ showed significantly higher Profiles of Mood States 2 scores, lower diabetes therapy‐related quality of life scores and higher glycated hemoglobin compared with those not reporting ‘painfulness,’ whereas the number of their daily SMBG tests were comparable. Patients reporting ‘painfulness’ also reported that SMBG use was significantly less important. Whether or not patients recognized the importance of SMBG use was well correlated with the frequency of physicians checking patient diaries.ConclusionsType 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients reporting ‘painfulness’ in SMBG use had more mental distress, lower health‐related quality of life and higher glycated hemoglobin regardless of their number of daily SMBG tests. The importance of SMBG use was recognized less by patients experiencing pain, and the importance of SMBG use was recognized more in medical institutions in which physicians regularly checked SMBG diaries to provide meaningful feedback to patients in clinical settings.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment in Sweden.

Flash glucose monitoring - an alternative to traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) - prevents hypoglycaemic events without impacting glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).21 Given the potential benefits, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using flash monitoring versus SMBG alone in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) receiving intensive insulin treatment in Sweden. Methods: This study used the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM, v9.0) to simulate the impact of flash monitoring versus SMBG over 50 years from the Swedish societal perspective. Trial data informed cohort data, intervention effects, and resource utilisation; literature and Tåndvards-Läkemedelförmånsverket (TLV) sources informed utilities and costs. Scenario analyses explored the effect of key base case assumptions. Results: In base case analysis, direct medical costs for flash monitor use were SEK1,222,333 versus SEK989,051 for SMBG use. Flash monitoring led to 0.80 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 13.26 versus 12.46 SMBG) for an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK291,130/QALY. ICERs for all scenarios remained under SEK400,000/QALY. Conclusion: Hypoglycaemia and health utility benefits due to flash glucose monitoring may translate into economic value compared to SMBG. With robust results across scenario analyses, flash monitoring may be considered cost-effective in a Swedish population of T1D intensive insulin users.

The Cost-effectiveness of a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment in Sweden.

Flash glucose monitoring, an alternative to traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), prevents hypoglycaemic events without impacting glycated haemoglobin (REPLACE trial). Given the potential benefits, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using flash monitoring versus SMBG alone in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving intensive insulin treatment in Sweden.Methods: This study used the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM, v8.5) to simulate the impact of flash monitoring versus SMBG over 40 years from the Swedish societal perspective. Baseline characteristics, intervention effects, and resource utilisation were derived from REPLACE; literature and Tandvårds-Läkemedelförmånsverket (TLV) sources informed utilities and costs. Scenario analyses explored the effect of key base case assumptions. Results: In base case analysis, direct medical costs for flash monitoring use were SEK1,630,586 (€158,523) versus SEK1,459,394 (€141,902) for SMBG use. Flash monitoring led to 0.56 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 6.21 versus 5.65 SMBG) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK306,082/QALY (€29,762/QALY). ICERs for all scenarios remained under SEK400,000/QALY (€38,894/QALY). Conclusions: Hypoglycaemia and health utility benefits due to flash glucose monitoring may translate into economic value compared to SMBG. With robust results across scenario analyses, flash monitoring may be considered cost-effective in a Swedish population of T2D intensive insulin users.

Cost Calculation for a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Intensive Insulin – a UK Perspective

Aims: Estimate the costs associated with flash glucose monitoring as a replacement for routine self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using intensive insulin, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods: The base-case cost calculation used the frequency of SMBG and healthcare resource use observed in the REPLACE trial. Scenario analyses considered SMBG at the flash monitoring frequencies observed in the REPLACE trial (8.3 tests per day) and a real-world analysis (16 tests per day). Results: Compared with 3 SMBG tests per day, flash monitoring would cost an additional £585 per patient per year, offset by a £776 reduction in healthcare resource use, based on reductions in emergency room visits (41%), ambulance call-outs (66%) and hospital admissions (77%) observed in the REPLACE trial. Per patient, the estimated total annual cost for flash monitoring was £191 (13.4%) lower than for SMBG. In the scenarios based on acquisition cost alone, flash monitoring was cost-neutral versus 8.3 SMBG tests per day (5% decrease) and cost-saving at higher testing frequencies. Conclusion: From a UK NHS perspective, for patients with T2DM using intensive insulin, flash monitoring is potentially cost-saving compared with routine SMBG irrespective of testing frequency.

Effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycaemic outcome among type 2 diabetic patients

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disorder which leads to complications especially when not properly managed. The role of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in type 2 diabetic patients using oral hypoglycaemic agents has been a source of controversy.&#x0D; &#x0D; Objective: The objective was to study the effect of SMBG on glycaemic outcome among type 2 diabetics in a primary care setting.&#x0D; &#x0D; Methodology: A randomised control study was conducted between March 2013 and November 2013 at the General Outpatient Clinic of the Family Medicine Department (FMD) in Lagos State University Teaching hospital. A total of 120 diabetic patients were randomised into intervention and control groups; 107 patients (55 in the intervention and 52 in the control group) completed the study. Intention-to-treat analysis was done. Chi-square, Students t- and paired t-test were used to determine variables significantly associated with SMBG.&#x0D; &#x0D; Results: More than three-quarters (77.5%) of the participants were aware of SMBG prior to commencement of the study. Both the SMBG (8.7% vs. 7.2%; p-value &lt; 0.001) and non-SMBG (8.7% vs 7.7%; p-value &lt; 0.001) groups had a significant improvement in HbA1c at the end of the study. Similarly there was a significant improvement in FBG among both groups (SMBG 153 mg/dl vs. 123 mg/dl; p-value &lt; 0.001 and non-SMBG (158 mg/dl vs. 137 mg/dl; p-value 0.022). The HbA1c at the end of the study was 7.2% for the SMBG vs 7.7% for the non-SMBG group with no statistical difference (p-value 0.174).&#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusion: The use of SMBG among type 2 DM patients did not result in better glycaemic control compared with patients who did not practise SMBG. It could be due to close follow-up and education of both groups.&#x0D; &#x0D; (Full text of the research articles are available online at www.medpharm.tandfonline.com/ojfp)&#x0D; &#x0D; S Afr Fam Pract 2017; DOI: 10.1080/20786190.2017.1340250

The relation between HbA1c and hypoglycemia revisited; a secondary analysis from an intervention trial in patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia

AimsWe aimed to re-assess the previously shown but recently disputed association between HbA1c and severe hypoglycemia. Methods52 Patients with T1D and IAH participated in an earlier reported randomized, crossover trial with two 16-week intervention periods comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). In this previous study, time spent in normoglycemia (the primary outcome), was improved by 9.6% (p<0.0001). We performed post-hoc analyses using a zero-inflated Poisson regression model to assess the relationship between severe hypoglycemia and HbA1c, glucose variability and duration of diabetes. ResultsDuring SMBG use, HbA1c and the number of severe hypoglycemic events were negatively associated (OR 0.20 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.44]). During CGM use, this relationship showed an odds ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.01). There was no significant relationship between glucose variability or duration of diabetes and severe hypoglycemia. ConclusionsIn patients with T1D and IAH, treated with standard SMBG, a negative association exists between HbA1c and the number of severe hypoglycemic events. Thus, reaching target HbA1c values still comes with a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia. CGM weakens this association, suggesting CGM enables patients to reach their target HbA1c more safely.

Effects of Structured Versus Unstructured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glucose Control in Patients With Non-insulin-treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is debated. Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest a small reduction of HbA1c in patients using SMBG, without considering potential confounders, such as SMBG regimen and use of SMBG data to adjust diabetes medications. A meta-analysis was performed including RCTs in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, with an intervention of ≥24 weeks and HbA1c as the primary endpoint, to verify the effect of SMBG (vs no monitoring), structured SMBG (vs unstructured), and of SMBG-driven therapy adjustments. In RCTs (n = 8) comparing SMBG with no SMBG (1277 and 1072 patients, respectively), SMBG reduced HbA1c by -0.17% (95% CI -0.25 to -0.09%, P < .003). The reduction in HbA1c was greater in RCTs (n = 3) in which SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes medications (HbA1c decrease: -0.3% [95% CI -0.49 to -0.1%]) than in RCTs (n = 6) where SMBG data were not used for this purpose (HbA1c decrease: -0.1% [95% CI -0.2 to 0.0%]) ( P < .005). In the RCTs comparing structured and unstructured SMBG (757 and 750 patients, respectively), in which structured SMBG data were also used to adjust diabetes medications, the HbA1c difference between groups at study end was -0.27% (95% CI -0.49 to -0.04%, P < .018). In RCTs performed in non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, SMBG is associated with a significant, although small, reduction in HbA1c. HbA1c reduction was greater with structured SMBG and when structured SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes therapy.

Compliance to self-monitoring of blood glucose among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and its influential factors: a real-world cross-sectional study based on the Tencent TDF-I blood glucose monitoring platform.

To investigate the compliance to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its influential factors. The real-world SMBG use over 90 days among 415 T2DM patients were recorded by using a blood glucose monitoring platform (TDF-I, Tencent, China). Clinical features including age, sex, duration of diabetes, insulin treatment or not, and use of oral antidiabetic drugs were collected. Poor compliance was defined as the average frequency of weekly SMBG use over 90 days was below the criteria established by the physicians, and otherwise the patients were regarded as with good compliance. Factors affecting the SMBG compliance were analyzed by using independent sample t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Only 57.6% of patients in the study cohort had good compliance to SMBG. Multivariate logistic regression models showed that only the duration of T2DM and the use of oral antidiabetic agents were independently associated with SMBG compliance; more specifically, patients with longer course of disease had poorer SMBG compliance, and those had used oral antidiabetic agents had poorer SMBG compliance. SMBG compliance in T2DM patients needs to be further improved. For patients with a longer course of disease and/or under oral antidiabetic medication, interventions such as patient education should be adopted to increase the SMBG compliance.