1. Home
  2. patients

patients

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Martens, T., Beck, R. W., Bailey, R., Ruedy, K. J., Calhoun, P., Peters, A. L., Pop-Busui, R., Philis-Tsimikas, A., Bao, S., Umpierrez, G., Davis, G., Kruger, D., Bhargava, A., Young, L., McGill, J. B., Aleppo, G., Nguyen, Q. T., Orozco, I., Biggs, W., Lucas, K. J., Polonsky, W. H., Buse, J. B., Price, D., Bergenstal, R. M.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long- or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications.

Interventions: Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months.

Results: Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -0.8% to -0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, -16% [95% CI, -21% to -11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, -26 mg/dL [95% CI, -41 to -12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group.

Conclusions and relevance: Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels at 8 months.

Keywords 
glucose glycemic control patients diabetes Basal Insulin insulin clinical trial

Terminating a Patient: Is It Time to Part Ways?

Author/s: 
Willis, Deanna R., Zerr, Ann

Many family physicians chose the specialty of family medicine because of the value placed on the therapeutic relationship between the patient and the physician. When that relationship is significantly or repeatedly challenged, family physicians feel it deeply, and it’s not always clear how best to address the problem.

We have found that, when emotions are high, having a standardized process for dealing with these challenges makes it easier to take appropriate action. Our process provides patients with plenty of opportunities to reconsider their behavior and re-engage in the relationship, when appropriate, and it provides the physician and staff the assurance that comes with following a reasoned, consistent approach when difficult circumstances arise. If it becomes necessary to terminate the relationship, our approach describes how to do it without running afoul of payers’ guidelines.

While our system is not perfect, it has significantly improved our ability to set expectations and draw boundaries in an environment where some payers have very narrowly defined the circumstances under which termination is acceptable. The flow charts in this article are based on ones we have used with success in our health system. You can download them below and adapt them for use in your practice.

Keywords 
family practice patients
Subscribe to patients