Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

Citation

(2009), "Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial", Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/cgij.2009.24814cae.004

Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

Article Type: Health Technology Assessment From: Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Volume 14, Issue 3

A.J. Farmer, A.N. Wade, D.P. French, J. Simon, P. Yudkin, A. Gray, A. Craven, L. Goyder, R.R. Holman, D. Mant, A.-L. Kinmonth and H.A.W. Neil, on behalf of the DiGEM Trial Group

Introduction

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a technology that is frequently incorporated into self-management interventions of diabetes, but has been separately evaluated in only a limited number of trials. Despite this lack of evidence, guidance is given to both support and discourage its use. Self-monitoring was used to guide insulin dose adjustment among individuals with type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study Research Group, 2005). This trial demonstrated conclusively that tight glycaemic control reduced the risk of long-term complications. However, among non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes it is unclear whether self-monitoring is useful in providing personal feedback about the impact of changes in eating patterns and physical activity to support self-management. Self-monitoring of blood glucose is now widely accepted as part of the management of people with type 2 diabetes (European Diabetes Policy Group, 1999, Blonde et al., 2002). The use of self-monitoring in this group of patients and the cost to health systems of the consumable test strips has become a major and increasing proportion of health-care budgets (Farmer and Neil, 2004, Davidson, 2005). We therefore set out to establish the benefit and cost-effectiveness of SMBG in the Diabetes Glycaemic Education and Monitoring (DiGEM) study.

Objectives

We report here the results of the DiGEM study – a trial designed to test whether self-monitoring of blood glucose, used with or without instruction in incorporating findings into self-management, can improve glycaemic control in non-insulin-treated diabetes compared with standardised usual care.

Methods

The DiGEM study was an open, parallel group randomised trial with an economic analysis, examination of impact on beliefs and self-reported behaviour, and a qualitative study to explore patient experiences. Participants were recruited from 48 general practices in Oxfordshire and South Yorkshire and were eligible if they had type 2 diabetes managed with diet or oral hypoglycaemic agents alone, were aged ≥25 years and had a glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 6.2 per cent. Patients were randomised to standardised usual care with 3-monthly HbA1c (control); SMBG with patient training focused on clinician interpretation of results in addition to usual care (less intensive self-monitoring); and SMBG with additional training of patients in interpretation and application of the results, to enhance motivation and maintain adherence to a healthy lifestyle (more intensive self-monitoring).

An intention-to-treat analysis was performed with the primary outcome of HbA1c at 12 months. Blood pressure, lipids, episodes of hypoglycaemia and quality of life measured with the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) were secondary measures. Further questionnaires were used to measure well-being, beliefs about use of SMBG and self-reports of medication taking, dietary and physical activities, and health-care resource use.

Results

A total of 453 patients were randomised, with mean (standard deviation) HbA1c 7.5 per cent (1.1). The differences in 12-month HbA1c between the three groups (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) were not statistically significant (p=0.12). The difference in unadjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 12 months between the control and less intensive self-monitoring groups was −0.14 per cent[95 per centconfidence interval (CI) −0.35 to 0.07] and between the control and more intensive self-monitoring groups was −0.17 per cent(95 per cent CI −0.37 to 0.03). No evidence was found of a significantly different impact of self-monitoring on glycaemic control when comparing subgroups of patients defined by duration of diabetes, therapy, diabetes-related complications and EQ-5D score.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose was found to be significantly more expensive than standardised usual care, by £92 and £84 for the less intensive SMBG and the more intensive SMBG groups respectively. There appears to be an initial negative impact of SMBG on quality of life measured on the EQ-5D. The potential additional lifetime gains in quality-adjusted life-years, resulting from the lower levels of risk factors achieved at the end of trial follow-up, were outweighed by the initial negative impacts for both SMBG groups compared with standardised usual care. Results of the extrapolation also suggest that the incremental lifetime savings in diabetes complications did not offset the additional intervention costs. The cost–utility analysis showed that it is unlikely that either investigated form of SMBG is cost-effective compared with standardised usual care.

In-depth interviews identified groups of patients who used SMBG to monitor impact of different lifestyle choices and motivate adherence to these choices. However, there were also patients who were not clear about the relationship between behaviour and test results or who experienced no improvement in test results after changing behaviour. Questionnaires about health-related beliefs did not identify an increase in perceived control over diabetes, but did find an increase in perceived seriousness of diabetes in the group carrying out more intensive self-monitoring.

Conclusions

We have found no convincing evidence to recommend routine use of SMBG by reasonably well-controlled, non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The specific advantages of monitoring identified by patients need to be placed in the context of a decline in compliance in the more intensive monitoring group and, at best, a small reduction in HbA1c. Neither the within-trial economic analysis nor the long-term modelling supports SMBG as a cost-effective intervention for all non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. However, a clinically important benefit for specific subgroups of patients in initiating good glycaemic control cannot be excluded without further research.

Implications for practice

• •

  This trial does not provide convincing evidence to support the routine use of SMBG for non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. However, our trial does not negate the established benefits of SMBG in insulin-treated patients, although further work is required to optimise its use.

• •

  Our in-depth interviews suggest that some individuals may benefit from SMBG use. However, with our present knowledge, we cannot clearly identify these patients, and clinical judgement is required to make this assessment in discussion with patients.

• •

  Our trial cannot exclude the possibility that SMBG may be helpful in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients with symptoms of hypoglycaemia; in those motivated to make alterations to behaviour that lead to consistent changes in blood glucose; and where there is strong patient preference.

• •

  If support for self-management training is available within usual care, then three-monthly HbA1c management may be the optimum strategy. However, if HbA1c remains above 8 per cent, then self-monitoring may provide motivation for medication adherence and lifestyle measures, as insulin therapy may be required in this group.

Research priorities

We have identified the following research priorities:

• •

  The qualitative element of the trial identifies a group of patients who consider that use of SMBG provides them with motivation to adopt and maintain behaviours that lead to better diabetes control. Further work is required to characterise those who gain most benefit in terms of glycaemic control and to determine whether this is related to use of the procedure.

• •

  Our results suggest that routine use of SMBG may not be appropriate for reasonably well-controlled patients; however, its role in the management of patients with less well-controlled diabetes is not clear. A pragmatic strategy of self-management education with HbA1c monitoring and intensifying drug therapy may be appropriate in the first instance. If glycaemic control is not then achieved, SMBG may be appropriate, first to explore any potential motivating effect, and second because insulin treatment is likely to be required. Exploration of the utility of this strategy may be useful.

• •

  There is an increased rate of hypoglycaemia reported among self-monitoring individuals. Further exploration of the data is needed to establish whether these differences are likely to result from biochemical differences or greater awareness of hypoglycaemia as a cause of symptoms.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRTCN47464659.

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. “Health technologies” are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.

The research findings from the HTA Programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the “National Knowledge Service”.

The HTA Programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects.

First is the commissioned route. Suggestions for research are actively sought from people working in the NHS, from the public and consumer groups and from professional bodies such as royal colleges and NHS trusts. These suggestions are carefully prioritised by panels of independent experts (including NHS service users). The HTA Programme then commissions the research by competitive tender.

Second, the HTA Programme provides grants for clinical trials for researchers who identify research questions. These are assessed for importance to patients and the NHS, and scientific rigour.

Third, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA Programme commissions bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy-makers. TARs bring together evidence on the value of specific technologies.

Some HTA research projects, including TARs, may take only months, others need several years. They can cost from as little as £40,000 to over £1 million, and may involve synthesising existing evidence, undertaking a trial, or other research collecting new data to answer a research problem.

The final reports from HTA projects are peer reviewed by a number of independent expert referees before publication in the widely read journal series Health Technology Assessment.

Criteria for inclusion in the HTA journal series

Reports are published in the HTA journal series if they have resulted from work for the HTA Programme, and they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed “systematic” when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned by the HTA Programme as:

• •

  Project number 01/14/10. The contractual start date was in November 2002. The draft report began editorial review in July 2006 and was accepted for publication in July 2007.

• •

  Project number 07/40/01. The protocol was agreed in December 2007. The assessment report began editorial review in May 2008 and was accepted for publication in August 2008.

• •

  Project number 01/38/05. The contractual start date was in October 2002. The draft report began editorial review in August 2007 and was accepted for publication in September 2008.

As the funder, by devising a commissioning brief, the HTA Programme specified the research question and study design. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA Programme or the Department of Health.

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Tom Walley

Series Editors: Dr Aileen Clarke, Dr Peter Davidson, Dr Chris Hyde, Dr John Powell, Dr Rob Riemsma and Professor Ken Stein