Implications of remote monitoring Technology in Optimizing Traditional Self-Monitoring of blood glucose in adults with T2DM in primary care

Alex R Montero, David Toro-Tobon, Kelly Gann, Carine M Nassar, Gretchen A Youssef, Michelle F Magee, Alex R Montero, David Toro-Tobon, Kelly Gann, Carine M Nassar, Gretchen A Youssef, Michelle F Magee

Abstract

Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been shown to reduce hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C). Accordingly, guidelines recommend SMBG up to 4-10 times daily for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin. For persons not on insulin, recommendations are equivocal. Newer technology-enabled blood glucose monitoring (BGM) devices can facilitate remote monitoring of glycemic data. New evidence generated by remote BGM may help to guide best practices for frequency and timing of finger-stick blood glucose (FSBG) monitoring in uncontrolled T2DM patients managed in primary care settings. This study aims to evaluate the impact of SMBG utility and frequency on glycemic outcomes using a novel BGM system which auto-transfers near real-time FSBG data to a cloud-based dashboard using cellular networks.

Methods: Secondary analysis of the intervention arm of a comparative non-randomized trial with propensity-matched chart controls. Adults with T2DM and HbA1C > 9% receiving care in five primary care practices in a healthcare system participated in a 3-month diabetes boot camp (DBC) using telemedicine and a novel BGM to support comprehensive diabetes care management. The primary independent variable was frequency of FSBG. Secondary outcomes included frequency of FSBG by insulin status, distribution of FSBG checks by time of day, and hypoglycemia rates.

Results: 48,111 FSBGs were transmitted by 359 DBC completers. Participants performed 1.5 FSBG checks/day; with 1.6 checks/day for those on basal/bolus insulin. Higher FSBG frequency was associated with greater improvement in HbA1C independent of insulin treatment status (p = 0.0003). FSBG frequency was higher in patients treated with insulin (p = 0.003). FSBG checks were most common pre-breakfast and post-dinner. Hypoglycemia was rare (1.2% < 70 mg/dL).

Conclusions: Adults with uncontrolled T2DM achieved significant HbA1C improvement performing just 1.5 FSBGs daily during a technology-enabled diabetes care intervention. Among the 40% taking insulin, this improvement was achieved with a lower FSBG frequency than guidelines recommend. For those not on insulin, despite a lower frequency of FSBG, they achieved a greater reduction in A1C compared to patients on insulin. Low frequency FSBG monitoring pre-breakfast and post-dinner can potentially support optimization of glycemic control regardless of insulin status in the primary care setting.

Trial registration: Trial registration number: NCT02925312 (10/19/2016).

Keywords: Blood glucose meter; Diabetes care management; Remote glucose monitoring; Self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Conflict of interest statement

Ms. Kelly Gann is a full-time employee at Biotelemetry, the maker of the blood glucose management system used in the study. Drs. Montero, Toro-Tobón and Magee, and Ms. Nassar and Ms. Youssef report no conflicts of interest relevant to this research.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Visual representation of the Diabetes Boot Camp (DBC) workflow. All finger-stick blood values were automatically uploaded to a cloud-based dashboard via cellular networks in near, real-time. The DBC’s team accessed the cloud-based dashboard and conducted a weekly audit of glycemic trends and a daily audit of FSBG extremes. The participant was contacted by the DBC’s team to provide medication titration, guidance, and further education when teachable moments (Including, FSBG extremes) were identified. (Figure was designed and owned by the authors of this manuscript)

References

    1. American Diabetes Association. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2018; [cited 2020 Jul 30]; Available from: .
    1. Schnell O, Alawi H, Battelino T, Ceriello A, Diem P, Felton A-M, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: recent studies. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):478–488. doi: 10.1177/193229681300700225.
    1. Malanda UL, Welschen LMC, Riphagen II, Dekker JM, Nijpels G, Bot SDM. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1:CD005060.
    1. Young LA, Buse JB, Weaver MA, Vu MB, Mitchell CM, Blakeney T, et al. Glucose self-monitoring in non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care settings: a randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(7):920–929. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1233.
    1. Machry RV, Rados DV, de Gregório GR, Rodrigues TC. Self-monitoring blood glucose improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes without intensive treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;142:173–187. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.05.037.
    1. Polonsky WH, Fisher L. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in noninsulin-using type 2 diabetic patients: right answer, but wrong question: self-monitoring of blood glucose can be clinically valuable for noninsulin users. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(1):179–182. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0731.
    1. American Diabetes Association . Fast Facts: Data and Statistics about Diabetes [Internet] 2022.
    1. Rowley WR, Bezold C, Arikan Y, Byrne E, Krohe S. Diabetes 2030: insights from yesterday, today, and future trends. Popul Health Manag. 2016;20(1):6–12. doi: 10.1089/pop.2015.0181.
    1. Rawshani A, Rawshani A, Franzén S, Sattar N, Eliasson B, Svensson A-M, et al. Risk factors, mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(7):633–644. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800256.
    1. Saudek CD, Derr RL, Kalyani RR. Assessing glycemia in diabetes using self-monitoring blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1688–1697. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1688.
    1. Rosenstock J, Park G, Zimmerman J, Group USIG (HOE 901) T 1 DI. Basal insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily insulin regimens. U.S. insulin glargine (HOE 901) type 1 diabetes Investigator Group. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(8):1137–1142. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.8.1137.
    1. Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J. The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3080–3086. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.11.3080.
    1. Effects of Intensive Glucose Lowering in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2545–59.
    1. Kravarusic J, Aleppo G. Diabetes technology use in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2020;49(1):37–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ecl.2019.10.006.
    1. Janapala RN, Jayaraj JS, Fathima N, Kashif T, Usman N, Dasari A, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Cureus [Internet]. 11(9) [cited 2020 Jul 30] Available from: .
    1. Kompala T, Neinstein A. A new era: increasing continuous glucose monitoring use in type 2 diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(4 Spec No.):SP123–SP126.
    1. Davidson JA. The increasing role of primary care physicians in caring for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(12 Suppl):S3–S4. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0466.
    1. Shrivastav M, Gibson W, Shrivastav R, Elzea K, Khambatta C, Sonawane R, et al. Type 2 diabetes Management in Primary Care: the role of retrospective, professional continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Spectr Publ Am Diabetes Assoc. 2018;31(3):279–287. doi: 10.2337/ds17-0024.
    1. The Office the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Telemedicine and Telehealth. [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from:
    1. Klonoff DC. Telemedicine for diabetes: current and future trends. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):3–5. doi: 10.1177/1932296815622349.
    1. El Amrani L, Oude Engberink A, Ninot G, Hayot M, Carbonnel F. Connected Health Devices for Health Care in French General Medicine Practice: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR MHealth UHealth [Internet]. 2017;5(12) [cited 2020 Jul 30] Available from: .
    1. McDonnell ME. Telemedicine in Complex Diabetes Management. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18(7):42. doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1015-3.
    1. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015;2015(9) [cited 2020 Jul 30] Available from: .
    1. Faruque LI, Wiebe N, Ehteshami-Afshar A, Liu Y, Dianati-Maleki N, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ. 2017;189(9):E341–E364. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150885.
    1. Veazie S, Winchell K, Gilbert J, Paynter R, Ivlev I, Eden K, et al. Mobile Health Applications for Self-Management of Diabetes [Internet]. Agency Healthcare Res Quality. 2018; [cited 2020 Jul 30]. Available from: .
    1. Kim Y, Park J-E, Lee B-W, Jung C-H, Park D-A. Comparative effectiveness of telemonitoring versus usual care for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare [Internet]. 2018; [cited 2020 Jul 30]; Available from: .
    1. Magee MF, Baker KM, Fernandez SJ, Huang C-C, Mete M, Montero AR, et al. Redesigning ambulatory care management for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study of the impact of a boot camp model on outcomes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000731.
    1. AADE7 Self-Care Behaviors for Managing Diabetes Effectively [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 7]. Available from:
    1. International Diabetes Federation. Diabetes Atlas [Internet]. 7th ed. International Diabetes Federation; 2015 [cited 2020 Oct 28]. Available from:
    1. Vijan S. Type 2 Diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(9):ITC65–ITC80. doi: 10.7326/AITC201911050.
    1. Vincze G, Barner JC, Lopez D. Factors associated with adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose among persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2004;30(1):112–125. doi: 10.1177/014572170403000119.
    1. Kalergis M, Nadeau J, Pacaud D, Yared Z, Yale J-F. Accuracy and reliability of reporting self-monitoring of blood glucose results in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Can J Diabetes. 2006;30(3):241–247. doi: 10.1016/S1499-2671(06)03006-1.
    1. Ajjan R, Slattery D, Wright E. Continuous glucose monitoring: a brief review for primary care practitioners. Adv Ther. 2019;36(3):579–596. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-0870-x.
    1. Association AD. 7 Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(Supplement 1):S85–S99. doi: 10.2337/dc21-S007.
    1. Lim S, Kang SM, Kim KM, Moon JH, Choi SH, Hwang H, et al. Multifactorial intervention in diabetes care using real-time monitoring and tailored feedback in type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2016;53(2):189–198. doi: 10.1007/s00592-015-0754-8.
    1. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, Barr EA, Ballew SH, Gruber-Baldini AL. Cluster-randomized trial of a Mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(9):1934–1942. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0366.
    1. Quinn CC, Clough SS, Minor JM, Lender D, Okafor MC, Gruber-Baldini A. WellDoc mobile diabetes management randomized controlled trial: change in clinical and behavioral outcomes and patient and physician satisfaction. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(3):160–168. doi: 10.1089/dia.2008.0283.
    1. Lee JY, Chan CKY, Chua SS, Ng CJ, Paraidathathu T, Lee KKC, et al. Telemonitoring and team-based Management of Glycemic Control on people with type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(1):87–94. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05316-9.
    1. Engler R, Routh TL, Lucisano JY. Adoption barriers for continuous glucose monitoring and their potential reduction with a fully implanted system: results from patient preference surveys. Clin Diabetes. 2018;36(1):50–58. doi: 10.2337/cd17-0053.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅