4.7 Article

Short- and Long-Term Effects of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 32-38

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc11-1438

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DexCom Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE-To determine whether short-time, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) has long-term salutary glycemic effects in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not on prandial insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-This was a randomized controlled trial of 100 adults with type 2 diabetes who were not on prandial insulin. This study compared the effects of 12 weeks of intermittent RT-CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycemic control over a 40-week follow-up period. Subjects received diabetes care from their regular provider without therapeutic intervention from the study team. RESULTS-There was a significant difference in A1C at the end of the 3-month active intervention that was sustained during the follow-up period. The mean, unadjusted A1C decreased by 1.0, 1.2, 0.8, and 0.8% in the RT-CGM group vs. 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, and 0.2% in the SMBG group at 12, 24, 38, and 52 weeks, respectively (P = 0.04). There was a significantly greater decline in A1C over the course of the study for the RT-CGM group than for the SMBG group, after adjusting for covariates (P < 0.0001). The subjects who used RT-CGM per protocol (>= 48 days) improved the most (P < 0.0001). The improvement in the RT-CGM group occurred without a greater intensification of medication compared with those in the SMBG group. CONCLUSIONS-Subjects with type 2 diabetes not on prandial insulin who used RT-CGM intermittently for 12 weeks significantly improved glycemic control at 12 weeks and sustained the improvement without RT-CGM during the 40-week follow-up period, compared with those who used only SMBG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available