Does Daily Self-monitoring of Blood Sugar Levels Improve Blood Sugar Control and Quality of Life for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes who Do Not Use Insulin?

Download or read book Does Daily Self-monitoring of Blood Sugar Levels Improve Blood Sugar Control and Quality of Life for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes who Do Not Use Insulin? written by Laura A. Young and published by . This book was released on 2018 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: For the nearly 75% of patients living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who do not use insulin, decisions regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can be especially problematic. While in theory SMBG holds great promise for sparking favorable behavior change, it is a resource-intensive activity without firmly established patient benefits.OBJECTIVES: The overarching goal was to assess the impact of 3 different SMBG testing approaches on patient-centered outcomes in patients with non-insulin-treated T2DM within the real-world clinic setting.OBJECTIVE 1: Assess SMBG effectiveness on 2 primary patient-centered outcomes, glycemic control (A1c) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), over 1 year in 450 participants with non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (DM) in the following 3 groups: (1) no SMBG testing, (2) once-daily SMBG testing with standard patient feedback consisting of glucose values immediately reported to the patient through the glucometer, and (3) once-daily SMBG testing with enhanced patient feedback consisting of glucose values immediately reported to the patient plus automated, tailored messaging also delivered via the glucometer. OBJECTIVE 2: Evaluate the impact of SMBG on secondary patient-centered outcomes including (1) DM-related quality of life, (2) DM self-care, (3) DM treatment satisfaction, (4) DM self-efficacy, (5) patient-provider communication, (6) hypoglycemia frequency, and (7) health care utilization. OBJECTIVE 3: Conduct qualitative assessments of the patient participant and provider experience for all 3 intervention groups. This objective supports efficient translation of study findings to real-world clinic settings by exploring such issues as patient-provider communications, use of the glucometer and accompanying reports, utility of the treatment algorithm given to providers, and practice burden. METHODS: Using a stakeholder engagement approach, we developed and implemented a pragmatic trial. We randomly assigned 450 patients with non-insulin-treated T2DM in 15 North Carolina primary care practices to 3 arms without masking of treatment assignment: (1) no SMBG, (2) once-daily testing with standard feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient through the glucometer, and (3) once-daily SMBG with enhanced patient feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient plus automated, tailored feedback messaging delivered to the patient through the glucometer following each testing. Coprimary outcomes included glycemic control (A1c) and HRQOL at 52 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were randomized and 92.9% completed the final visit. There were no significant differences in glycemic control across all 3 groups (P = 0.74; estimated adjusted mean A1c difference: SMBG with messaging vs no SMBG −0.09% [95% CI, −0.31% to 0.14%]; SMBG vs No SMBG −0.05% [95% CI, −0.27% to 0.17%]). There were also no significant differences found in HRQOL. There were no notable differences in key adverse events, including hypoglycemia frequency, health care utilization, or insulin initiation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, at 1 year we observed no clinically or statistically significant differences in glycemic control or HRQOL between patients who performed SMBG compared with those who did not perform SMBG. The addition of tailored feedback provided through messaging via a meter did not provide any advantage in glycemic control.