4.6 Article

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

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003087

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Services Research Programme of the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
  2. Association of Compulsory Health Insurance (GKV)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据