Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Makes FLASH the difference between the intervention group and the treatment-as-usual group in an evaluation study of a structured education and treatment programme for flash glucose monitoring devices in people with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Melanie Schipfer, Carmen Albrecht, Dominic Ehrmann, Thomas Haak, Bernd Kulzer, Norbert Hermanns

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

People with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy need sufficient glycaemic control to prevent the onset or progression of diabetic complications. The burden of multiple daily blood glucose self-testing can be lessened by novel diabetes technology like flash glucose monitoring systems which provide more information compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose. Despite this delivered additional information studies are showing no significant effect on HbA1c reduction, but a reduced time spent in a hypoglycaemic glucose range. We assume that users of these devices need additional education and training to integrate the delivered information into treatment decisions. Therefore, FLASH, an education and treatment programme, was developed. The programme evaluation follows herein.

Methods/design

Patients are recruited through 40 diabetes outpatient study centres located across Germany. They will be randomly assigned to participate in the education and treatment programme (intervention group) or to obtain treatment as usual (control group). All patients have to give blood samples and to answer a bench of questionnaires during baseline assessment, at the end of the intervention, and 6 months after the end of the intervention. Physicians will be asked to declare some additional clinical data (such as details of the diabetes therapy) for every patient at every one of the three assessment points.

Discussion

This study is conducted as a randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that the newly developed education and treatment programme combined with the use of a flash glucose monitoring device (intervention group) is superior to reduce HbA1c compared to the use of flash glucose monitoring alone (control group). The first results will be expected in 2018.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03175315. Registered on 2 May 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline JP, RAyman G. Flash Glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:55–73.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Polonski WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. What is so tough about self-monitoring of blood glucose? Perceived obstacles among patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2014;31:40–6.CrossRef
4.
5.
Bailey T, Bode BW, Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Alva S. The performance and usability of a factory-calibrated flash glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015;17(11):787–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Schmitt A, Reimer A, Ehrmann D, Kulzer B, Haak T, Hermanns N. Development and evaluation of a psychometric instrument to assess problems related to illness acceptance in diabetes. Diabetologia. 2015;58 Suppl 1:Abstract 946.
7.
Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Earles J, Dudl RJ, Lees J, Mullan J, et al. Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the Diabetes Distress Scale. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(3):626–31.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Polonsky WH, Anderson BJ, Lohrer PA, Welch G, Jacobson AM, Aponte JE, et al. Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:754–60.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Brähler E, Muehlan H, Albani C, Schmidt S. Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Versionen des EUROHIS-QOL-Lebensqualitäts-Index und des WHO‐5 Wohlbefinden‐Index. Diagnostica. 2007;53:83–96.CrossRef
10.
Greiner W, Claes C. The EQ-5D of the EuroQoL Group. In: Schoeffski O, von der Schulenburg JM G, editors. Health economics evaluation. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 403–14.
11.
Hautzinger M, Bailer J. German version of the Centre for Epidemiological Studies— Depression Scale. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1993.
12.
Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1–3):163–73.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Fitzgerald JT, Marrero DG. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:739–43.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Clarke WL, Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick LA, Julian D, Schlundt D, Polonsky W. Reduced awareness of hypoglycemia in adults with IDMM. A prospective study of hypoglycemic frequency and associated symptoms. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:517–22.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Kulzer B, Bauer U, Hermanns N, Bergis KH. Entwicklung eines Problemfragebogens für Diabetiker zur Identifikation von Schwierigkeiten im Umgang mit der Krankheit. Verhaltenstherapie. 1995;5:A72.
17.
18.
19.
Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin J, Doré C, Parulekar W, Summerskill W, Groves T, Schulz K, Sox H, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Makes FLASH the difference between the intervention group and the treatment-as-usual group in an evaluation study of a structured education and treatment programme for flash glucose monitoring devices in people with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Melanie Schipfer
Carmen Albrecht
Dominic Ehrmann
Thomas Haak
Bernd Kulzer
Norbert Hermanns
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2479-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The "ComPAS Trial" combined treatment model for acute malnutrition: study protocol for the economic evaluation

Study protocol

Efficacy and safety of Ding-Kun-Dan for female infertility patients with predicted poor ovarian response undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Mechanochemical ablation versus cyanoacrylate adhesive for the treatment of varicose veins: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Research

Sample size implications of mortality definitions in sepsis: a retrospective cohort study

Study protocol

TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

The evaluation of changes in peripheral neuropathy and quality-of-life using low-frequency electrostimulation in patients treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer: a study protocol