scholarly journals Minimizing Glucose Excursions (GEM) With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J Cox ◽  
Tom Banton ◽  
Matthew Moncrief ◽  
Mark Conaway ◽  
Anne Diamond ◽  
...  

Abstract This study aimed to compare conventional medication management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to medication management in conjunction with a lifestyle intervention using continuous glucose monitoring to minimize glucose excursions. Thirty adults (63% female; mean age, 53.3 years) who were diagnosed with T2D for less than 11 years (mean, 5.6 years), had glycated A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 7.0% (51 mmol/mol) (mean 8.8%, [73 mmol/mol]), and were not using insulin, were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to routine care (RC) or 4 group sessions of glycemic excursion minimization plus real-time CGM (GEMCGM). Assessments at baseline and 5 months included a physical exam, metabolic and lipid panels, a review of diabetes medications, and psychological questionnaires. For the week following assessments, participants wore a blinded activity monitor and completed 3 days of 24-hour dietary recall. A subgroup also wore a blinded CGM. GEMCGM participants significantly improved HbA1c (from 8.9% to 7.6% [74-60 mmol/mol] compared with 8.8% to 8.7% [73-72 mmol/mol] for RC (P = .03). Additionally, GEMCGM reduced the need for diabetes medication (P = .01), reduced carbohydrate consumption (P = .009), and improved diabetes knowledge (P = .001), quality of life (P = .01) and diabetes distress (P = .02), and trended to more empowerment (P = .05) without increasing dietary fat, lipids, or hypoglycemia. Confirming our prior research, GEMCGM appears to be a safe, effective lifestyle intervention option for adults with suboptimally controlled T2D who do not take insulin.

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 509-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope J. Taylor ◽  
Campbell H. Thompson ◽  
Natalie D. Luscombe-Marsh ◽  
Thomas P. Wycherley ◽  
Gary Wittert ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 73-LB
Author(s):  
MARY L. JOHNSON ◽  
DARLENE M. DREON ◽  
BRIAN L. LEVY ◽  
SARA RICHTER ◽  
DEBORAH MULLEN ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 973-P
Author(s):  
ALLISON LAROCHE ◽  
KRISTINA UTZSCHNEIDER ◽  
CATHERINE PIHOKER

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2180-PUB
Author(s):  
ADDIE L. FORTMANN ◽  
ALESSANDRA BASTIAN ◽  
CODY J. LENSING ◽  
SHANE HOVERSTEN ◽  
KIMBERLY LUU ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dulce Adelaida Rivera-Ávila ◽  
Alejandro Iván Esquivel-Lu ◽  
Carlos Rafael Salazar-Lozano ◽  
Kyla Jones ◽  
Svetlana V. Doubova

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document