8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      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

      , , ,
      Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Significantly Reduces A1C Levels in Poorly Controlled, Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

          OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months. RESULTS The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: −1.2% (0.09) vs. −0.9% (0.10); Δ = −0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: −1.3% (0.11) vs. −0.8% (0.11); Δ = −0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient’s initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB). CONCLUSIONS Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (ESMON study): randomised controlled trial.

            To assess the effect of self monitoring of blood glucose concentrations on glycaemic control and psychological indices in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. Prospective randomised controlled trial of self monitoring versus no monitoring (control). Hospital diabetes clinics. 184 (111 men) people aged <70 with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes referred to the participating diabetes clinics. Major exclusion criteria were secondary diabetes, insulin treatment, previous self monitoring of blood glucose. Participants were randomised to self monitoring or no monitoring (control) groups for one year with follow-up at three monthly intervals. Both groups underwent an identical structured core education programme. The self monitoring group received additional education on monitoring. Between group differences in HbA(1c), psychological indices, use of oral hypoglycaemic drugs, body mass index (BMI), and reported hypoglycaemia rates. 96 patients (55 men) were randomised to monitoring and 88 (56 men) to control. There were no baseline differences in mean (SD) age (57.7 (11.0) in monitoring group v 60.9 (11.5) in control group) or HbA(1c) (8.8 (2.1)% v 8.6 (2.3)%, respectively). Those in the monitoring group had a higher baseline BMI (34 (7) v 32 (6.2)). There were no significant differences between groups at any time point (12 months values given) in HbA(1c) (6.9 (0.8)% v 6.9 (1.2)%, P=0.69; 95% confidence interval for difference -0.25% to 0.38%), BMI (33.1 (6.4) v 31.8 (6.0); adjusted for baseline BMI, P=0.32), use of oral hypoglycaemic drugs, or reported incidence of hypoglycaemia. Monitoring was associated with a 6% higher score on the depression subscale of the well-being questionnaire (P=0.01). In patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes self monitoring of blood glucose concentration has no effect on glycaemic control but is associated with higher scores on a depression subscale. ISRCTN 49814766.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin.

              Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been found to be effective for patients with type 1 diabetes and for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. There is much debate on the effectiveness of SMBG as a tool in the self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
                J Diabetes Sci Technol
                SAGE Publications
                1932-2968
                1932-2968
                July 06 2017
                July 12 2017
                : 12
                : 1
                : 183-189
                Article
                10.1177/1932296817719290
                5761981
                28697625
                e5bcf17b-0821-450a-b9a7-8fe5e7868820
                © 2017

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article