Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
For the nearly 75% of patients living with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) that do not use insulin, decisions regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) are unclear. SMBG testing is a resource intensive activity without firmly established patient benefits. While SMBG holds great promise for sparking favorable behavior change, the potential for no benefit or even patient harm must be acknowledged. Possible negative effects on patient quality of life must be more closely examined along with the speculative benefits of SMBG in non-insulin treated T2DM. Among studies examining this issue a general consensus is evolving; while SMBG may or may not be useful, its value can only be fully appreciated when the SMBG results are provided to patients in a useful manner. The overarching goal of this proposal is to assess the impact of three different SMBG testing approaches on patient-centered outcomes in patients with non-insulin treated T2DM within the real-world, clinic setting. In this pragmatic trial, 450 patients will be randomized to one of the following three SMBG testing regimens: 1) no SMBG testing, 2) once daily SMBG testing with standard patient feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient through the glucose meter, and 3) once daily SMBG testing with enhanced patient feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient plus automated, tailored feedback messaging. The first two arms represent common SMBG testing approaches. The third arm is an enhanced, patient-centered approach to SMBG testing. SMBG values will be evaluated at routine clinic visits over 52 weeks.
Full description
Within the context of a controlled and randomized but pragmatic trial, we seek to answer the following question: does SMBG testing make sense for Non-insulin treated (NIT) diabetes mellitus (DM) patients in terms of either A1c values or Health-related Quality of Life (QOL). We will also examine whether or not patients with different baseline characteristics might see different outcomes from three SMBG testing approaches. To achieve our goal of testing SMBG options in community-based primary care practices, the study has been designed to minimize as much as possible any interruptions in or alterations to standard daily patient care. We will recruit 450 patients from five primary care practices. Patients will be followed for one year. During routine clinic visits, their health care providers will be guided to modify therapies based on American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, which focus on A1c values and SMBG values if available.
Study Arms Two of the three study arms were chosen to reflect existing, widely used options for patients with NIT DM. Arm 3, described below, of this trial is particularly novel in that it tests the potential benefit of new technology now available to these patients; namely, wireless transmission of blood glucose test results accompanied by instantaneous tailored feedback. While this option may hold great promise for patients and their providers, data supporting this are lacking. The results of this study will inform consumers and providers about whether this new technology can support efforts to alter behaviors in a way that results in improved A1c values or better quality of life. Particularly appealing is that this approach employs technology that supports more efficient use of SMBG values by both patients and their providers. In terms of their pragmatic 'fit', all three groups fit easily into current practice at the participating practices. For example, they do not require extra clinic visits (other than possibly the initial recruitment assessment), and while staff will need to download glucose reports for patients in Arms 2 and 3, this will be a very simple, streamlined procedure. In terms of risks to patients, none of the three groups puts patients at any additional risk, because all three are versions of 'standard practice' for this patient population and doctors are free to alter therapies and testing schedules as they normally would.
Potential Alterations to the Testing Recommendations: Providers will be strongly encouraged to maintain SMBG testing fidelity based upon the treatment arm to which a patient is randomized; however, if a provider believes that testing should occur more frequently due to concern for serious unrecognized hypo- or hyperglycemia or for any other reason, testing recommendations may be modified. This approach provides for patient safety and preserves the pragmatic nature of the trial. Glucose testing strips will be provided to participants on a quarterly basis. If a provider deems that SMBG testing should occur more frequently than what is recommended to the patient based on the study arm to which he or she has been randomized, the health care provider must write the prescription for the additional test strips and the strips must be paid for out-of-pocket or through insurance. Following an intention to treat model, patients who opt not to follow the testing regimen to which they were randomly assigned will be encouraged to remain in the study. Any deviations from the assigned SMBG testing protocol will be readily known via the glucose meter reports.
Mixed methods approach. A mixed methods approach in which both qualitative and quantitative data are collected provides advantages when exploring complex research questions such as the ones posed in this proposal. The quantitative data will allow us to assess changes in objective measures, while the qualitative data will provide a deeper understanding of patients' and providers' experiences with the various components of SMBG testing arms (e.g., the meters, SMBG results, personalized messaging, downloadable reports, treatment algorithms, etc.) It is also the case that, while some patients are interested in seeing hard facts and figures, others prefer testimonials from patients like themselves. The mixed methods approach enables us to provide both types of information, increasing the effectiveness and uptake of our dissemination efforts.
Recruitment and randomization procedures. Patient Recruitment: All potentially eligible patients expressing interest in the study will complete an initial screening phone call. The call will take about 15 minutes, during which a member of the study team will describe the study, answer questions, and conduct a short set of simple screening to determine eligibility. Eligible patients who remain interested in participation will complete an assessment visit with a research coordinator. To decrease patient burden and further engage participating practices, assessment visits will occur at the patient's primary care office. Assessments will be separate from their appointment with their primary care provider, and may or may not occur on the same day as a regularly scheduled clinic visit, though for patient convenience we will make every effort to coordinate the assessments with a regular clinic visits. During these assessments, the research coordinator will review the study details in greater depth, verify all inclusion and exclusion criteria, and obtain written informed consent.
Patient Randomization: After providing informed consent, baseline A1c, and completing all baseline study questionnaires, participants will be randomized to one of the three arms using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The research coordinator will review the treatment assignment with the patient, using a standardized script, provide the training and supplies necessary for participation in that study arm and answer any remaining questions.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
450 participants in 3 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal