WITHDRAWN: A Comparison of Internet Monitoring with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.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

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.