WITHDRAWN: A Comparison of Internet Monitoring with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and an Internet blood glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) on glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 had the results of their self-monitoring of blood glucose level monitored biweekly using an IBGMS. Group 2 used RT-CGM and were monitored biweekly. Both groups used a secure website to upload data and to receive feedback from their endocrinologist. A1C and laboratory test results were collected at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: The baseline parameters were not significantly different. After a 6-month follow-up period, both IBGMS and RT-CGM showed significant within-group improvements in A1C level. In the IBGMS group, the A1C level decreased from 8.79%±1.25% to 7.96%±1.30% (p<0.05). The RT-CGM group decreased from 8.80%±1.37% to 7.49%±0.70% (p<0.001). IBGMS and RT-CGM did not show significantly different A1C levels at baseline, 3 and 6 months (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of both IBGMS and RT-CGM significantly improved A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in a randomized trial over a 6-month period. There were no significant differences in A1C values between groups after 6 months.

The effectiveness of Internet intervention on 926 patients with diabetes mellitus for up to 30 months.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effect of an Internet blood glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) on patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In all, 1200 patients were offered to be taught to communicate with their endocrinologists using standardized glucose level reports by e-mail, and received feedback within 24 hours. The first 926 patients enrolled were reviewed consecutively from March 2011 to October 2013. Seventy-seven of these patients were excluded owing to lack of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) data. The remaining 849 patients consisted of 295 patients with type 1 diabetes and 554 patients with type 2 diabetes. Nonreporters are patients with no record of reporting (n=167), whereas the reporters had reported at least once (n=682). The A1C values were obtained at registration; follow-up values at 3-month intervals were recommended. RESULTS: Reporter A1C decreased from 8.13%±1.34% to 7.74%±1.11% (p<0.0001). Reporters with type 1 diabetes dropped from 8.04%±1.23% to 7.72%±1.03% (n=238; p<0.0001). Reporters with type 2 diabetes dropped from 8.18%±1.40% to 7.75%±1.14% (n=444; p<0.0001) and were subdivided based on treatment: those on oral hypoglycemic agents declined from 7.96%±1.38% to 7.49%%±1.03% (p<0.0001), and those on insulin with or without oral hypoglycemic agents declined from 8.40%%±1.39% to 8.02%±1.20% (p<0.0001). The nonreporters did not show a significant change in A1C. CONCLUSIONS: Initial and prolonged improvement was found in A1C levels for all reporters. The data support that numerous patients can be followed up effectively using the Internet for as long as 30 months.

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus internet-based blood glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes: a study of treatment satisfaction.

AIMS: To compare treatment satisfaction between real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and internet-blood glucose monitoring (IBGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin. METHODS: This study recruited 40 patients who completed a parallel randomized controlled trial comparing a RT-CGM to an IBGM. Patients in the RT-CGM group monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly and emailed results to their endocrinologist. Patients in the IBGM group also monitored their blood-glucose levels bi-weekly, but entered their data into an IBGM. Both groups used a secure website to submit blood-glucose readings and to receive feedback from their endocrinologist. Feedback included changes in therapy, suggestions on testing frequency, lifestyle modifications and/or encouragement to continue with no changes. At the end of 6 months, treatment satisfaction was measured using the 8-item Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. In this study, "treatment" refers to the blood glucose monitoring system to which patients were randomized. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 40 patients completed the treatment satisfaction questionnaire (80%). Compared to the RT-CGM group, the IBGM group reported a significantly higher level of overall treatment satisfaction (24.80 vs. 33.41, p<0.000). Ratings of individual satisfaction components including convenience, flexibility, likelihood of recommending treatment to others, and willingness to continue with treatment were also found to be significantly higher in the IBGM group. CONCLUSION: Patients using IBGM are more satisfied with their blood glucose monitoring system compared to those using RT-CGM.

A comparison of internet monitoring with continuous glucose monitoring in insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) and an Internet blood glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) on glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 had the results of their self-monitoring of blood glucose level monitored biweekly using an IBGMS. Group 2 used RT-CGM and were monitored biweekly. Both groups used a secure website to upload data and to receive feedback from their endocrinologist. A1C and laboratory test results were collected at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: The baseline parameters were not significantly different. After a 6-month follow-up period, both IBGMS and RT-CGM showed significant within-group improvements in A1C level. In the IBGMS group, the A1C level decreased from 8.79%±1.25% to 7.96%±1.30% (p<0.05). The RT-CGM group decreased from 8.80%±1.37% to 7.49%±0.70% (p<0.001). IBGMS and RT-CGM did not show significantly different A1C levels at baseline, 3 and 6 months (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of both IBGMS and RT-CGM significantly improved A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in a randomized trial over a 6-month period. There were no significant differences in A1C values between groups after 6 months.