Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Type 2 Diabetes | Research

The effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

Authors: Dulce Adelaida Rivera-Ávila, Alejandro Iván Esquivel-Lu, Carlos Rafael Salazar-Lozano, Kyla Jones, Svetlana V. Doubova

Published in: BMC Endocrine Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The study objective was to evaluate the effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

We conducted a three-month quasi-experimental study with an intervention (IGr) and control group (CGr) and ex-ante and ex-post evaluations in one family medicine clinic in Mexico City. Participants were T2D patients with HbA1c > 8% attending a comprehensive diabetes care program. In addition to the program, the IGr wore a professional CGM sensor (iPro™2) during the first 7 days of the study. Following this period, IGr participants had a medical consultation for the CGM results and treatment adjustments. Additionally, they received an educational session and personalized diet plan from a dietitian. After 3 months, the IGr again wore the CGM sensor for 1 week. The primary outcome variable was HbA1c level measured at baseline and 3 months after the CGM intervention. We analyzed the effect of the intervention on HbA1c levels by estimating the differences-in-differences treatment effect (Diff-in-Diff). Additionally, baseline and three-month CGM and dietary information were recorded for the IGr and analyzed using the Student’s paired t-test and mixed-effects generalized linear models to control for patients’ baseline characteristics.

Results

Overall, 302 T2D patients participated in the study (IGr, n = 150; control, n = 152). At the end of the three-month follow-up, we observed 0.439 mean HbA1C difference between groups (p = 0.004), with an additional decrease in HbA1c levels in the IGr compared with the CGr (Diff-in-Diff HbA1c mean of − 0.481% points, p = 0.023). Moreover, compared with the baseline, the three-month CGM patterns showed a significant increase in the percentage of time in glucose range (+ 7.25; p = 0.011); a reduction in the percentage of time above 180 mg/dl (− 6.01; p = 0.045), a decrease in glycemic variability (− 3.94, p = 0.034); and improvements in dietary patterns, shown by a reduction in total caloric intake (− 197.66 Kcal/day; p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

Professional CGM contributes to reducing HbA1c levels and is an adjuvant educational tool that can improve glycemic control in patients with T2D.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04667728. Registered 16/12/2020

International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas. 9th ed: International Diabetes Federation; 2019. Available at: www.diabetesatlas.org

Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Gonzalez-Gonzalez JG, Zuñiga-Hernandez JA, McCoy RG. Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ. 2019;367:l5887. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5887.CrossRefPubMed

Ratner RE. Glycemic control in the prevention of diabetic complications. Clin Cornerstone. 2001;4(2):24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1098-3597(01)90027-4.CrossRefPubMed

Manne-Goehler J, Geldsetzer P, Agoudavi K, Andall-Brereton G, Aryal KK, Bicaba BW, et al. Health system performance for people with diabetes in 28 low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys. PLoS Med. 2019;16(3):e1002751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002751.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krhač M, Lovrenčić MV. Update on biomarkers of glycemic control. World J Diabetes. 2019;10(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v10.i1.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kumar R, Raviteja KV, Sachdeva N, Dayal D. Feasibility and acceptability of professional continuous glucose monitoring system in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: an observational study. J Diabetol. 2019;10(1):15–20. https://doi.org/10.4103/jod.jod_13_18.CrossRef

Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S2):S4–S11. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0024.CrossRefPubMed

Park C, Le QA. The effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(9):613–21. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0177.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor PJ, Thompson CH, Brinkworth GD. Effectiveness and acceptability of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 diabetes management: a narrative review. J Diabetes Investig. 2018;9(4):713–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Murphy HR, Rayman G, Lewis K, Kelly S, Johal B, Duffield K, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2008;337(sep25 2):a1680. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1680.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Teodoro de Oliveira AO, Bartholomew K, Lavin-Tompkins J, Sperl-Hillen J. Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an educational tool in the primary care setting. Diabetes Spectr. 2013;26(2):120–3. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.26.2.120.CrossRef

12.

Gill M, Zhu C, Shah M, Chhabra H. Health care costs, hospital admissions, and glycemic control using a standalone, real-time, continuous glucose monitoring system in commercially insured patients with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(4):800–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818777265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Parkin CG, Graham C, Smolskis J. Continuous glucose monitoring use in type 1 diabetes: longitudinal analysis demonstrates meaningful improvements in HbA1c and reductions in health care utilization. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(3):522–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296817693253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Bruttomesso D, Laviola L, Avogaro A, Bonora E, del Prato S, Frontoni S, et al. The use of real time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes: a consensus view of Italian diabetes experts using the Delphi method. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29(5):421–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.01.018.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Reddy N, Verma N, Dungan K. Monitoring technologies- continuous glucose monitoring, mobile technology, biomarkers of glycemic control. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, et al., editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth: MDText.com, Inc.; 2000. [Updated 2020 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279046/.

16.

Basto-Abreu A, Barrientos-Gutiérrez T, Rojas-Martínez R, Aguilar-Salinas CA, López-Olmedo N, de la Cruz-Góngora V, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and poor glycemic control in Mexico: results from Ensanut 2016. Salud Publica Mex. 2020;62(1):50–9. https://doi.org/10.21149/10752.CrossRefPubMed

17.

ISSSTE. Estadística. Anuarios 2019. Capítulo 1. Estadísticas de población. Población Amparada por Entidad Federativa. Mexico; 2019. Availabale at: http://www.issste.gob.mx/datosabiertos/anuarios/anuarios2019.html#cap1. Accessed 7 Aug 2020.

18.

Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado. Mexico. Prensa 14 de Noviembre de 2019. https://www.gob.mx/issste/prensa/la-diabetes-es-la-segunda-causa-de-muerte-en-el-issste-ramirez-pineda?idiom=es; https://www.gob.mx/issste/prensa/llama-el-issste-a-reforzar-la-prevencion-de-diabetes-y-obesidad-por-su-alta-incidencia-entre-la-poblacion. Accessed 22 Feb 2020.

19.

Blanco-Cornejo M, Riva-Palacio-Chiang-Sam IL, Sánchez-Díaz I, et al. New model for diabetes primary health care based on patient empowerment and the right to preventive health: the MIDE program. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2017;41:e128. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2017.128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, Bergenstal RM, Close KL, DeVries JH, et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(12):1631–40. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Ress; 2000.

22.

Villa JM. Diff: simplifying the estimation of difference-in-differences treatment effects. Stata J. 2016;16(1):52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1601600108.CrossRef

23.

Dziura JD, Post LA, Zhao Q, Fu Z, Peduzzi P. Strategies for dealing with missing data in clinical trials: from design to analysis. Yale J Biol Med. 2013;86(3):343–58.PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal inference. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2015.

25.

Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(3):278–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280210395740.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bergenstal RM. Understanding continuous glucose monitoring data. In: Role of continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes treatment. Arlington: American Diabetes Association; 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538967/. https://doi.org/10.2337/db20181-20.CrossRef

27.

Lawton J, Blackburn M, Allen J, Campbell F, Elleri D, Leelarathna L, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2018;18(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-018-0239-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Aleppo G. Approaches for successful outcomes with continuous glucose monitoring. In: Role of continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes treatment. Arlington: American Diabetes Association; 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538974/. https://doi.org/10.2337/db20181-13.CrossRef

29.

Glooko. Annual diabetes report 2017. Available from www.glooko.com/resource/2017-annual-diabetes-report. Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

30.

Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S25–37. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0035.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Yoo HJ, An HG, Park SY, Ryu OH, Kim HY, Seo JA, et al. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;82(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2008.06.015.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Cox DJ, Taylor AG, Moncrief M, Diamond A, Yancy WS Jr, Hegde S, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in the self-management of type 2 diabetes: a paradigm shift. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(5):E71–3. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-2836.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Sherwani SI, Khan HA, Ekhzaimy A, Masood A, Sakharkar MK. Significance of HbA1c test in diagnosis and prognosis of diabetic patients. Biomark Insights. 2016;11:95–104. https://doi.org/10.4137/BMI.S38440.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Zhang Y, Hu G, Yuan Z, Chen L. Glycosylated hemoglobin in relationship to cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042551.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Sierra JA, Shah M, Gill MS, Flores Z, Chawla H, Kaufman FR, et al. Clinical and economic benefits of professional CGM among people with type 2 diabetes in the United States: analysis of claims and lab data. J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2017.1390474.CrossRefPubMed

Title: The effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes
Authors: Dulce Adelaida Rivera-Ávila
Alejandro Iván Esquivel-Lu
Carlos Rafael Salazar-Lozano
Kyla Jones
Svetlana V. Doubova
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Type 2 Diabetes
Published in: BMC Endocrine Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6823
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-021-00742-5

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Association of tooth loss with morbidity and mortality by diabetes status in older adults: a systematic review

The application value of serum 25(OH)D3, uric acid, triglyceride, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance in male patients with hyperuricemia combined with hypogonadism

Prevalence and risk factors of diabetes in a large community-based study in the Sultanate of Oman: STEPS survey 2017

IL-6 and IL-10 gene polymorphisms and cirrhosis of liver risk from a comprehensive analysis

Gender differences in the association between sleep duration and body mass index, percentage of body fat and visceral fat area among chinese adults: a cross-sectional study

The relationship between red blood cell distribution and islet β-cell function indexes in patients with type 2 diabetes

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page