Dataset Information

Effect of the frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs-a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Recommendations on the frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) vary widely among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Aim of this study was to investigate two testing regimen of SMBG in patients with stable metabolic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with T2D treated with oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to two groups: either one SMBG (low) or four SMBG (high) per week. Subjects were followed up after 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome parameter was the change in HbA1c between baseline and 6 months. Primary outcome criterion was tested by a one-sided t- test for non- inferiority. Secondary outcome parameters were safety, compliance and HbA1c at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: There were no differences in the 202 subjects for demographic and sociodemographic parameters and drug treatment. HbA(1)c (%) at baseline was similar in both groups (7.2+/-1.4 vs. 7.2+/-1.0). Non- inferiority was demonstrated for the low group (p = 0.0022) with a difference from baseline to 6 months of 0.24 in the low and of 0.16 in the high group. Compliance with the testing regimen was 82-90% in both groups. There were no statistical significant differences for compliance, HbA(1)c at 3 and 12 months and serious adverse events (SAE). CONCLUSION: One SMBG per week is as sufficient and safe as four SMBG per week to maintain HbA(1)c in non-insulin treated T2D close to metabolic target. The results of this study are in contrast to current international consensus guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN79164268.

SUBMITTER: Scherbaum WA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2518209 | biostudies-literature | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of the frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs-a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial.

Scherbaum Werner A WA Ohmann Christian C Abholz Heinz-Harald HH Dragano Nico N Lankisch Mark M

PloS one 20080828 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Recommendations on the frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) vary widely among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Aim of this study was to investigate two testing regimen of SMBG in patients with stable metabolic control.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>Patients with T2D treated with oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized to two groups: either one SMBG (low) or four SMBG (high) per week. Subjects were followed up after 3, 6 and 12 months ...[more]

PMID: 18769484

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMedical treatment options for type 2 diabetes (T2D) have increased over the last decade and enhance the possibility of individualised treatment strategies where insulin is still one of them. In spite of the advancements in treatment options, less than one-third of the population with T2D obtain their optimal glycaemic goal. In persons with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has shown to be the most important driver for improvement in glycaemic control, even more than insulin-pump therapy. The use of technology in T2D has only been investigated in few studies.The overall objective of the research study is to examine the effectiveness of the use of CGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with insulin-treated T2D on glycaemic variables and patient-reported outcomes on treatment satisfaction, health behaviour and well-being. The independent effect of peer support will also be studied.Methods and analysisThe study is a single centre, prospective, randomised, open-labelled, three-armed study with the randomisation 2:1:2 in group A with CGM, group B with CGM and peer support, and group C as a control group with SMBG. The participants receive a training course unique for the allocation group. The study runs for 12 months and includes 100 adult participants with insulin-treated T2D, treated at the outpatient clinic at Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen. Primary outcome is difference in change in time in range. Recruitment begins in August 2020 and ends in July 2021. Final 12-month follow-up is anticipated to be in August 2022.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Capital Region (H-20000843). Data collection and handling will be performed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (J-2020-100). Dissemination will be in international peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04331444).Protocol versionV.3, 11 December 2020.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a useful tool in diabetes management, but its efficacy and optimal application in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients treated without insulin have been controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SMBG in controlling blood glucose levels in non-insulin-treated T2D patients and to determine the optimal frequency and the most appropriate population to benefit from SMBG.MethodsEligible publications from January 2000 to April 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing SMBG with no SMBG or structured SMBG (S-SMBG, SMBG with defined timing and frequency of glucose measurements) were included. Meta-analyses and sub-analyses were performed to assess the efficacy, optimal frequency, and most appropriate population for SMBG. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.ResultsTwenty-two studies involving 6204 participants were identified, including 17 comparing SMBG with no SMBG and 4 comparing SMBG with S-SMBG. SMBG reduced HbA1c (MD -0.30%, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.17) compared with no SMBG, and S-SMBG performed better than SMBG (MD -0.23%, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that HbA1c control was better with SMBG at 8-11 times weekly (MD -0.35%, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.20) compared with other frequencies and with lifestyle adjustments (MD -0.37%, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.23) than with no adjustments. No significant differences in HbA1c were observed between baseline HbA1c subgroups (≤ 8% and > 8%, P = 0.63) and between diabetes duration subgroups (≤ 6 years and > 6 years, P = 0.72), respectively.DiscussionSMBG was effective for controlling HbA1c in non-insulin-treated T2D patients, although lacking detailed monitoring design. Better outcomes were seen with SMBG at 8-11 times weekly and lifestyle adjustment based on SMBG results.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42021285604).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is still unsolved issue. The aim of this study was to investigate hypoglycemia in T2DM in participants treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents using different glucose cut-off values and to explore influence of different therapies. METHODS:This multi-center prospective observational study included participant with T2DM from primary care offices across Croatia treated with antihyperglycemic agents who were monitored using professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device (iPro™2). Hypoglycemia was defined as at least 1% of the monitored period spent in the hypoglycemic range and/or area under the curve of glycemia registered ever under the defined cut-off value. The higher upper limit of blood glucose cut-off value was 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and the lower one 3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL). RESULTS:Study included 94 participants. Median hemoglobin A1C levels, age, T2DM duration, body mass index, and CGM use duration were 7 (5.8-11.5) %, 65 (40-86) years, 7 (1-36) years, 30.4 (21.3-41.5) kg/m2 and 6 (1-7) days, respectively. Fifty participants were treated with sulfonylurea, primarily gliclazide (84%). The percentage of participant with hypoglycemia based on the higher cut-off value was 42.6% vs. 16% based on the higher cut-off value. The percentage of participant with nocturnal hypoglycemia (23 PM to 06 AM) was significantly lower among participant with hypoglycemia based on the higher cut-off value compared to lower one (7.8% vs. 22.9%). Sulfonylurea treatment did not influence the occurrence of hypoglycemia. Analysis of the data from participants having hypoglycemia based on the lower cut-off value pointed to other possible risk factors for hypoglycemia like prolonged overnight fasting, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and concomitant therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS:In participant with T2DM treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents hypoglycemia based on the blood glucose cut-off value of 3.9 mmol/L was more prevalent, but with less nocturnal hypoglycemia. Sulfonylurea therapy was not risk factor for hypoglycemia regardless of cut-off value. In participants having hypoglycemia based on the blood glucose cut-off value of 3.0 mmol/L some other possible factors were identified related to concomitant therapy, nutrition and daily habits. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03253237.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.Search methodsFor this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .Selection criteriaOutcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.Data collection and analysisReview authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 82%).Authors' conclusionsParticipants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

Project description:IntroductionWe investigated the possibilities of drug-drug interactions between luseogliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, and oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in healthy Japanese males.MethodsWe conducted six independent studies to investigate potential drug-drug interactions between 5 mg luseogliflozin and the following OADs usually used in Japan: 1 mg glimepiride, 250 mg metformin, 30 mg pioglitazone, 50 mg sitagliptin, 50 mg miglitol, or 0.6 mg voglibose (0.2 mg before each meal). Twelve subjects were enrolled in each study. The glimepiride, metformin, sitagliptin, and miglitol studies were randomized, open-label, single-dose, three-way crossover studies. The pioglitazone and voglibose studies were open-label studies, where a single dose of luseogliflozin was added to multiple doses of pioglitazone or voglibose. The endpoints were the area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24 h) or to infinity (AUCinf) and the maximum concentration (Cmax) of each drug administered alone or in combination.ResultsThe 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for Cmax of luseogliflozin in the pioglitazone and miglitol studies were beyond the reference range for bioequivalence (0.80-1.25) (miglitol: 0.851 [0.761, 0.952]; pioglitazone: 1.16 [1.04, 1.30]). However, the 90% CIs for AUC0-24 h were within the reference range. The 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax and AUC0-24 h of pioglitazone were beyond the reference range (Cmax 0.884 [0.746, 1.05]; AUC0-24 h 0.896 [0.774, 1.04]), but the 90% CIs for the active metabolites of pioglitazone were within the reference range. For the other combinations tested, the 90% CIs and GMRs for luseogliflozin and the individual OADs were within the reference range.ConclusionNo clinically meaningful interactions were observed between luseogliflozin and six commonly used OADs in Japan, although there were some changes in the pharmacokinetics of pioglitazone co-administered with luseogliflozin and for luseogliflozin co-administered with miglitol or pioglitazone.FundingTaisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Dataset Information

Effect of the frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs-a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of the frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs-a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets