The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, United States
NCT Number: NCT02033499
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.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me30 year–99 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, United States
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.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Blood glucose levels are tested once daily.
Other names: Self-monitoring of blood glucose with a Telcare glucometer
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Absolute Change in Glycemic Control (% Hemoglobin A1c) from baseline at 52 weeks
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Change in Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscale scores (Physical and Mental subscales) from baseline to 52 weeks. The SF-36 is a widely used measure of health-related quality of life. Each subscale score ranges from 0 - 100, with 100 being the best quality of life score.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
The change from baseline Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scores will be assessed at 52 weeks. The PAID is a widely used tool to assess psychological and social stress associated with diabetes. The PAID scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the most distress.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Change in diabetes-related symptom frequency and perceived severity from baseline at 52 weeks using the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised. Overall score ranges from 0 to 170, with 170 indicating the worse symptom severity.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Change in the SDCA subscales (general diet, specific diet, exercise, blood sugar testing, and foot care), a multidimensional measure of diabetes self-management activities, from baseline at 52 weeks will be assessed. For each subscale, the score is the mean number of days specified subscale activities occurred. Each subscale ranges from 0 to 7, with 7 the best score possible.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Change from baseline patient satisfaction with treatment at 52 weeks using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire subscales, overall satisfaction and satisfaction with blood glucose control. For overall satisfaction, the range is 0-36, with 36 (high score) being the most satisfied. For satisfaction with blood glucose control, the subscale range is 0 to 12, with 0 (low score) indicating the most satisfaction.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Changes in diabetes-specific self-efficacy using the Diabetes Empowerment Scale - Short Form from baseline at 52 weeks. The scale ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating most empowered.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Change from baseline patient perception of communication with their provider at 52 weeks using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Scale scores range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best communication.
Time frame: Baseline to 52 weeks
Number of participants with hypoglycemia events for the 52 week intervention period.
Time frame: Baseline and 52 weeks
Primary care visits, hospitalization, urgent care, and emergency room and emergency medical service (EMS) visits recorded at baseline and 52 weeks.
Time frame: Baseline and 52 weeks
Number of participants taking each of the following medications at baseline and follow-up: metformin, sulfonylurea, glinides, Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), Thiazolidinediones (TZD), and dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV).
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Other
Effect of Glucose Monitoring on Patient and Provider Outcomes in Non-insulin Treated Diabetes
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT01614262
DIABETES MELLITUS, NONINSULIN-DEPENDENT, 2 (Disorder), Diabetes Mellitus
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT00038727
Body Weight, CVD
Rockville, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03899883
Diabetes, Diabetes Complications
Aurora, Colorado, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT00065676
Body Weight, Diabetes
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
View Trial Details