Loading…

ROSES: role of self-monitoring of blood glucose and intensive education in patients with Type 2 diabetes not receiving insulin. A pilot randomized clinical trial

Diabet. Med. 28, 789–796 (2011) Aims  To estimate the efficacy of a self‐monitoring‐based disease management strategy in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with oral agent monotherapy. Methods  This was an open‐label, randomized, pilot study, primarily led by diabetes nurses. Patients were random...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetic medicine 2011-07, Vol.28 (7), p.789-796
Main Authors: Franciosi, M., Lucisano, G., Pellegrini, F., Cantarello, A., Consoli, A., Cucco, L., Ghidelli, R., Sartore, G., Sciangula, L., Nicolucci, A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Diabet. Med. 28, 789–796 (2011) Aims  To estimate the efficacy of a self‐monitoring‐based disease management strategy in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with oral agent monotherapy. Methods  This was an open‐label, randomized, pilot study, primarily led by diabetes nurses. Patients were randomly allocated to either a self‐monitoring‐based disease management strategy or usual care (ratio 3:1) and followed up for 6 months. Education was centred on how to modify lifestyle according self‐monitoring readings. Self‐monitoring of blood glucose results were discussed during monthly telephone contact. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA1c levels, estimated with an ANOVA for repeated measures. All analyses were intention to treat. Results  Three diabetic clinics recruited 62 patients, of whom five were lost to follow‐up. At baseline, both groups had a mean HbA1c value of 7.9% ± 0.6% (63 ± 6 mmol/mol). After 6 months, mean HbA1c reduction was 1.2 ± 0.1% (–13 ± 1 mmol/mol) in the intervention group and 0.7 ± 0.2 (–8 ± 2 mmol/mol) in the control group, with an absolute mean difference between groups of –0.5% (95% CI −0.9 to −0.0%; P = 0.04) (−5 mmol/mol, 95% CI −10 to 0). At study end, 61.9% of patients in the intervention group and 20.0% in the control group reached the target level of HbA1c
ISSN:0742-3071
1464-5491
DOI:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03268.x