scholarly journals Evaluation of a Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Facilitated by Connected Glucose Meters for Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial. (Preprint)

JMIR Diabetes ◽  
10.2196/25574 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Amante ◽  
David M. Harlan ◽  
Stephenie C. Lemon ◽  
David D. McManus ◽  
Oladapo O. Olaitan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial

Time‐Restricted Feeding Improves Glucose Tolerance in Men at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Obesity ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy T. Hutchison ◽  
Prashant Regmi ◽  
Emily N.C. Manoogian ◽  
Jason G. Fleischer ◽  
Gary A. Wittert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Glucose Tolerance ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Restricted Feeding ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial

Resveratrol treatment does not reduce arterial inflammation in males at risk of type 2 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Boswijk ◽  
Marlies de Ligt ◽  
Marie-Fleur J Habets ◽  
Alma M.A. Mingels ◽  
Wouter D. van Marken Lichtenbelt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Adipose Tissue ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Fdg Uptake ◽  
Resveratrol Treatment ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial ◽  
Arterial Inflammation ◽  
18F Fdg

Abstract Purpose Resveratrol has shown promising anti-inflammatory effects in in vitro and animal studies. We aimed to investigate this effect on arterial inflammation in vivo. Methods This was an additional analysis of a double-blind randomized crossover trial which included eight male subjects with decreased insulin sensitivity who underwent an 18F-fluoroxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT after 34 days of placebo and resveratrol treatment (150 mg/day). 18F-FDG uptake was analyzed in the carotid arteries and the aorta, adipose tissue regions, spleen, and bone marrow as measures for arterial and systemic inflammation. Maximum target-to-background ratios (TBRmax) were compared between resveratrol and placebo treatment with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Median values are shown with their interquartile range. Results Arterial 18F-FDG uptake was non-significantly higher after resveratrol treatment (TBRmax all vessels 1.7 (1.6–1.7)) in comparison to placebo treatment (1.5 (1.4–1.6); p=0.050). Only in visceral adipose tissue, the increase in 18F-FDG uptake after resveratrol reached statistical significance (p=0.024). Furthermore, CRP-levels were not significantly affected by resveratrol treatment (p=0.091). Conclusions Resveratrol failed to attenuate arterial or systemic inflammation as measured with 18F-FDG PET in subjects at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. However, validation of these findings in larger human studies is needed.

Targeting hyperglycaemia with either metformin or repaglinide in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized crossover trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. S. Lund ◽  
L. Tarnow ◽  
C. D. A. Stehouwer ◽  
C. G. Schalkwijk ◽  
M. Frandsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial

Trimetazidine added to combined hemodynamic antianginal therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 154 (1) ◽  
pp. 78.e1-78.e7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Weiss Ribeiro ◽  
Jorge P. Ribeiro ◽  
Ricardo Stein ◽  
Cristiane Leitão ◽  
Carísi Anne Polanczyk
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial

scholarly journals Fully automated closed-loop glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes requiring dialysis: an open-label, randomized crossover trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte K. Boughton ◽  
Afroditi Tripyla ◽  
Sara Hartnell ◽  
Aideen Daly ◽  
David Herzig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Insulin Therapy ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Crossover Trial ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Crossover Trial ◽  
Target Glucose

AbstractWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of fully closed-loop insulin therapy compared with standard insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes requiring dialysis. In an open-label, multinational, two-center, randomized crossover trial, 26 adults with type 2 diabetes requiring dialysis (17 men, 9 women, average age 68 ± 11 years (mean ± s.d.), diabetes duration of 20 ± 10 years) underwent two 20-day periods of unrestricted living, comparing the Cambridge fully closed-loop system using faster insulin aspart (‘closed-loop’) with standard insulin therapy and a masked continuous glucose monitor (‘control’) in random order. The primary endpoint was time in target glucose range (5.6–10.0 mmol l−1). Thirteen participants received closed-loop first and thirteen received control therapy first. The proportion of time in target glucose range (5.6–10.0 mmol l−1; primary endpoint) was 52.8 ± 12.5% with closed-loop versus 37.7 ± 20.5% with control; mean difference, 15.1 percentage points (95% CI 8.0–22.2; P < 0.001). Mean glucose was lower with closed-loop than control (10.1 ± 1.3 versus 11.6 ± 2.8 mmol l−1; P = 0.003). Time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol l−1) was reduced with closed-loop versus control (median (IQR) 0.1 (0.0–0.4%) versus 0.2 (0.0–0.9%); P = 0.040). No severe hypoglycemia events occurred during the control period, whereas one severe hypoglycemic event occurred during the closed-loop period, but not during closed-loop operation. Fully closed-loop improved glucose control and reduced hypoglycemia compared with standard insulin therapy in adult outpatients with type 2 diabetes requiring dialysis. The trial registration number is NCT04025775.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Facilitated by Connected Glucose Meters for Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial. (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Amante ◽  
David M. Harlan ◽  
Stephenie C. Lemon ◽  
David D. McManus ◽  
Oladapo O. Olaitan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Treatment Satisfaction ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Glucose Meter ◽  
Diabetes Center

BACKGROUND Patients with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) experience increased morbidity, mortality and higher cost of care. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a critical component of diabetes self-management with established diabetes outcome benefits. Technological advancements in blood glucose meters, including cellular-connected devices that automatically upload SMBG data to secure cloud-based databases, allow for improved sharing and monitoring of SMBG data. Real-time monitoring of SMBG data presents opportunities to provide timely support to patients responsive to abnormal SMBG recordings. Such diabetes remote monitoring programs can provide patients with poorly-controlled T2D additional support needed to improve critical outcomes. OBJECTIVE To evaluate six months of a diabetes remote monitoring program facilitated by cellular-connected glucose meter, access to a diabetes coach and support responsive to abnormal blood glucose recordings greater than 400 mg/dL or below 50 mg/dL in adults with poorly controlled T2D. METHODS Patients (n=120) receiving care at a diabetes center of excellence participated in a two-arm, 12-month randomized crossover study. The intervention included a cellular-connected glucose meter and phone-based diabetes coaching provided by Livongo Health. The coach answered questions, assisted in goal setting, and provided support in response to abnormal glucose levels. One group received the intervention for six months before returning to usual care (IV/UC). The other group received usual care before enrolling in the intervention (UC/IV) for six months. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the primary outcome and change in treatment satisfaction was the secondary outcome. RESULTS Improvements in mean HbA1c were seen in both groups during the first six months (IV/UC -1.1% (SD 1.5) vs. UC/IV -0.8% (1.5), p < 0.001). After crossover, there was no significant change in HbA1c in IV/UC (mean HbA1c change +0.2 (1.7), p=0.41); however, those in UC/IV showed further improvement (mean (SD) HbA1c change -0.4% (1.0), p < 0.01). A mixed-effects model showed no significant treatment effect (IV vs. UC) over 12 months (p=0.06). However, participants with higher baseline HbA1c and those in first time period experienced greater improvements in HbA1c. Both groups reported similar improvements in treatment satisfaction throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS Patients enrolled in the diabetes remote monitoring program intervention experienced improvements in HbA1c and treatment satisfaction similar to usual care at a specialty diabetes center. Future studies on diabetes remote monitoring program should incorporate scheduled coaching components and involve family members and caregivers. CLINICALTRIAL Study details can be found at clinicaltrials.gov with the study identifier number: NCT03124043.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document