Dataset Information

Automated insulin dosing guidance to optimise insulin management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Insulin therapy is most effective if dosage titrations are done regularly and frequently, which is seldom practical for most clinicians, resulting in an insulin titration gap. The d-Nav Insulin Guidance System (Hygieia, Livonia, MI, USA) is a handheld device that is used to measure glucose, determine glucose patterns, and automatically determine the appropriate next insulin dose. We aimed to determine whether the combination of the d-Nav device and health-care professional support is superior to health-care professional support alone. METHODS:In this multicentre, randomised, controlled study, we recruited patients from three diabetes centres in the USA (in Detroit MI; Minneapolis, MN; and Des Moines IA). Patients were eligible if they were aged 21-70 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 7·5% or higher (?58 mmol/mol) and 11% or lower (?97 mmol/mol), and had been using the same insulin regimen for the previous 3 months. Exclusion criteria included body-mass index of 45 kg/m2 or higher; severe cardiac, hepatic, or renal impairment; and more than two severe hypoglycaemic events in the past year. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), with randomisation blocked within each site, to either d-Nav and health-care professional support (intervention group) or health-care professional support alone (control group). Both groups were contacted seven times (three face-to-face and four phone visits) during 6 months of follow-up. The primary objective was to compare average change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Safety was assessed by the frequency of hypoglycaemic events. The primary objective and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical significance. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02424500. FINDINGS:Between Feb 2, 2015, and March 17, 2017, 236 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 181 (77%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention (n=93) and control (n=88) groups. At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8·7% (SD 0·8; 72 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the intervention group and 8·5% (SD 0·8; 69 mmol/mol [SD 8·8]) in the control group. The mean decrease in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months was 1·0% (SD 1·0; 11 mmol/mol [SD 11]) in the intervention group, and 0·3% (SD 0·9; 3·3 mmol/mol [9·9]) in the control group (p<0·0001). The frequency of hypoglycaemic events per month was similar between the groups (0·29 events per month [SD 0·48] in the intervention group vs 0·29 [SD 1·12] in the control group; p=0·96). INTERPRETATION:The combination of automated insulin titration guidance with support from health-care professionals offers superior glycaemic control compared with support from health-care professionals alone. Such a solution facilitated safe and effective insulin titration in a large group of patients with type 2 diabetes, and now needs to be evaluated across large health-care systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness. FUNDING:US National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

SUBMITTER: Bergenstal RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6715130 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe achievement of glycaemic control remains challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes. We assessed the effectiveness of day-and-night hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in people with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older.MethodsIn this open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, parallel randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at four hospitals in the UK and two centres in the USA. We randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes aged 6 years and older treated with insulin pump and with suboptimal glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·5-10·0%) to receive either hybrid closed-loop therapy or sensor-augmented pump therapy over 12 weeks of free living. Training on study insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring took place over a 4-week run-in period. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned using central randomisation software. Allocation to the two study groups was unblinded, and randomisation was stratified within centre by low (<8·5%) or high (≥8·5%) HbA1c. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range of 3·9-10·0 mmol/L at 12 weeks post randomisation. Analyses of primary outcome and safety measures were done in all randomised patients. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02523131, and is closed to accrual.FindingsFrom May 12, 2016, to Nov 17, 2017, 114 individuals were screened, and 86 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive hybrid closed-loop therapy (n=46) or sensor-augmented pump therapy (n=40; control group). The proportion of time that glucose concentration was within the target range was significantly higher in the closed-loop group (65%, SD 8) compared with the control group (54%, SD 9; mean difference in change 10·8 percentage points, 95% CI 8·2 to 13·5; p<0·0001). In the closed-loop group, HbA1c was reduced from a screening value of 8·3% (SD 0·6) to 8·0% (SD 0·6) after the 4-week run-in, and to 7·4% (SD 0·6) after the 12-week intervention period. In the control group, the HbA1c values were 8·2% (SD 0·5) at screening, 7·8% (SD 0·6) after run-in, and 7·7% (SD 0·5) after intervention; reductions in HbA1c percentages were significantly greater in the closed-loop group compared with the control group (mean difference in change 0·36%, 95% CI 0·19 to 0·53; p<0·0001). The time spent with glucose concentrations below 3·9 mmol/L (mean difference in change -0·83 percentage points, -1·40 to -0·16; p=0·0013) and above 10·0 mmol/L (mean difference in change -10·3 percentage points, -13·2 to -7·5; p<0·0001) was shorter in the closed-loop group than the control group. The coefficient of variation of sensor-measured glucose was not different between interventions (mean difference in change -0·4%, 95% CI -1·4% to 0·7%; p=0·50). Similarly, total daily insulin dose was not different (mean difference in change 0·031 U/kg per day, 95% CI -0·005 to 0·067; p=0·09) and bodyweight did not differ (mean difference in change 0·68 kg, 95% CI -0·34 to 1·69; p=0·19). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred. One diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group due to infusion set failure. Two participants in each study group had significant hyperglycaemia, and there were 13 other adverse events in the closed-loop group and three in the control group.InterpretationHybrid closed-loop insulin delivery improves glucose control while reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia across a wide age range in patients with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes.FundingJDRF, NIHR, and Wellcome Trust.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if an intervention consisting of telemonitoring and supervision by usual primary care clinicians of home self measured blood pressure and optional patient decision support leads to clinically important reductions in daytime systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial.Setting20 primary care practices in south east Scotland.Participants401 people aged 29-95 years with uncontrolled blood pressure (mean daytime ambulatory measurement ≥ 135/85 mm Hg but ≤ 210/135 mm Hg).InterventionSelf measurement and transmission of blood pressure readings to a secure website for review by the attending nurse or doctor and participant, with optional automated patient decision support by text or email for six months.Main outcome measuresBlinded assessment of mean daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure six months after randomisation.Results200 participants were randomised to the intervention and 201 to usual care; primary outcome data were available for 90% of participants (182 and 177, respectively). The mean difference in daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure adjusted for baseline and minimisation factors between intervention and usual care was 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5; P=0.0002) and for daytime diastolic ambulatory blood pressure was 2.3 mm Hg (0.9 to 3.6; P=0.001), with higher values in the usual care group. The intervention was associated with a mean increase of one general practitioner (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.6; P=0.0002) and 0.6 (0.1 to 1.0; P=0.01) practice nurse consultations during the course of the study.ConclusionsSupported self monitoring by telemonitoring is an effective method for achieving clinically important reductions in blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings. However, it was associated with increase in use of National Health Service resources. Further research is required to determine if the reduction in blood pressure is maintained in the longer term and if the intervention is cost effective.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN72614272.

Project description:IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care providers aim to stimulate self-management in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. However, they have a limited number of patient contacts to do this. With the growing number of T2DM patients, innovative and cost-effective interventions to promote self-management are needed. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of diabetes self-management education via a smartphone app in T2DM patients on insulin therapy.MethodsNon-blinded two-arm multi-centre randomised controlled superiority trial with parallel-groups and equal randomisation ('TRIGGER study'). Eligible patients are 40-70 years, on insulin therapy since at least 3 months, with HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol (> 7%). In total 228 patients will be recruited. The intervention group (n = 114) will receive diabetes self-management education via a smartphone app to trigger diabetes self-management: unidirectional text messages, free of charge, evidence and psychological theory based, with regard to dietary habits, physical activity, hypoglycaemia and glucose variability. Patients choose their preferred frequency (two to six times per week), topics (two or three additionally to hypoglycaemia, which is an obligatory topic), and duration (6 or 9 months). The control group (n = 114) will receive care-as-usual. The primary study endpoint is the HbA1c level after a follow-up of 6 months. The percentage of patients who achieve an HbA1c level ≤ 53 mmol/mol (≤7%) without hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose < 3.5 mmol/L (< 63 mg/dL)) is a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes are body mass index, waist circumference, insulin dose, lipid profile, blood pressure, number of hypoglycaemic events, glycaemic variability, self-management (SDSCA), food habits (FFQ), physical activity (IPAQ), health status (EQ-5D-5 L, SF36), diabetes-dependent quality of life (ADDQoL), diabetes treatment satisfaction (DTSQ), satisfaction with the app, the cost-effectiveness of the intervention after 3 months, and sustainability of the intervention effect (3 months extra follow-up in intervention group to compare prolonged to discontinued use of the app). We will use the intention-to-treat principle to analyse data.DiscussionInnovative solutions are needed to improve the (cost-) effectiveness of self-management for the increasing number of T2DM patients. This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a newly developed smartphone app, designed to trigger diabetes self-management.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR5515 , registration date: 18 November 2015 (prospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundFailure to take medicines for diabetes as prescribed contributes to poor outcomes from the condition. Mobile phones are ubiquitous and short message service (SMS) texts have shown promise as a low-cost intervention. We tested the effectiveness of SMS-text messaging in improving outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes.MethodsStAR2D was a 12-month two-arm randomised trial of SMS-text messaging and usual care in Cape Town, South Africa and Lilongwe, Malawi. Messages used behaviour change theory and were developed with patients and staff. The intervention group received four messages each week. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who collected > 80% medication and changes in systolic blood pressure, lipids, cardiovascular risk, and the proportion of the participants reaching treatment goals.ResultsThe trial took place between 1 October, 2016 and 1 October 2018, 1186 participants were randomised to intervention (593) and control (593) groups. 91% of participants completed follow-up. There was a reduction in HbA1c (DCCT) in both groups but not in mean change (95% CI) between groups (- 0.08% (- 0.31 to 0.16) (IFCC - 0.82 mmol/mol (- 3.44 to 1.79). There was a small but not significant increase in the proportions of participants likely to have collected 80% or more of medication (Relative risk 1.11 (0.84 to 1.47; P = 0.47). There was a significant difference between groups in change in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 3.46 mmHg (1.48 to 5.44, P = 0.001) in favour of the intervention group. The between group difference in change in 10-year risk of coronary heart disease was - 0.71% (- 1.46 to 0.04, P = 0.064). The proportion of participants meeting treatment goals in the intervention group was 36.0% and in the control group 26.8% (Relative risk 1.36 (1.13 to 1.63, P = 0.001). Participants reported many challenges to adherence despite finding messages acceptable and useful.ConclusionsWhilst SMS text messages do not lead to improved glycaemia in these low-resource settings there appeared to be an impact on blood pressure and achievement of treatment goals but the mechanisms for this are unclear. Text messages alone, may be unsuccessful unless accompanied by health system strengthening and other forms of self-management support for type 2 diabetes.Trial registrationTrial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN70768808. Registered 1 July 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/I ISRCTN70768808.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. METHODS:For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. FINDINGS:Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·63-1·09; p=0·18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1·91, 1·06-3·44; p=0·0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0·82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0·41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0·79). INTERPRETATION:In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians' Services Incorporated.

Dataset Information

Automated insulin dosing guidance to optimise insulin management in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets