Search

Aims: Psychological care is recognised as an integral part of quality diabetes care. We set out to describe the roles and competencies of the clinical psychologist as a member of the multidisciplinary adult diabetes care team, focused on secondary care. Methods: The authors are clinically experienced psychologists involved in adult diabetes care, from Australia, Europe and North America, and active members of the international psychosocial aspects of diabetes study group. Consensus was reached as a group on the roles and competencies of the clinical psychologist working in adult diabetes secondary care, building both on expert opinion and a selective review and discussion of the literature on psychological care in diabetes, clinical guidelines and competency frameworks. Results: The clinical psychologist fulfils multiple roles: (1) as a clinician (psychological assessment and therapy), (2) as advisor to the healthcare team (training, consulting), (3) as a communicator and promotor of person-centred care initiatives and (4) as a researcher. Four competencies that are key to successfully fulfilling the above-mentioned roles in a diabetes setting are as follows: (a) specialised knowledge, (b) teamwork and advice, (c) assessment, (d) psychotherapy (referred to as STAP framework). Conclusions: The roles and competencies of clinical psychologists working in diabetes extend beyond the requirements of most university and post-graduate curricula. There is a need for a comprehensive, accredited specialist post-graduate training for clinical psychologists working in diabetes care, building on the proposed STAP framework. This calls for a collaborative effort involving diabetes organisations, clinical psychology societies and diabetes psychology interest groups.

Aims/hypothesis Previous studies have shown that individuals with similar mean glucose levels (MG) or percentage of time in range (TIR) may have different HbA(1c) values. The aim of this study was to further elucidate how MG and TIR are associated with HbA(1c). Methods Data from the randomised clinical GOLD trial (n=144) and the follow-up SILVER trial (n=98) of adults with type 1 diabetes followed for 2.5 years were analysed. A total of 596 paired HbA(1c)/continuous glucose monitoring measurements were included. Linear mixed-effects models were used to account for intra-individual correlations in repeated-measures data. Results In the GOLD trial, the mean age of the participants (+/- SD) was 44 +/- 13 years, 63 (44%) were female, and the mean HbA(1c) (+/- SD) was 72 +/- 9.8 mmol/mol (8.7 +/- 0.9%). When correlating MG with HbA(1c), MG explained 63% of the variation in HbA(1c) (r=0.79, p<0.001). The variation in HbA(1c) explained by MG increased to 88% (r=0.94, p value for improvement of fit <0.001) when accounting for person-to-person variation in the MG-HbA(1c) relationship. Time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/l), time above range (TAR) level 2 (>13.9 mmol/l) and glycaemic variability had little or no effect on the association. For a given MG and TIR, the HbA(1c) of 10% of individuals deviated by >8 mmol/mol (0.8%) from their estimated HbA(1c) based on the overall association between MG and TIR with HbA(1c). TBR and TAR level 2 significantly influenced the association between TIR and HbA(1c). At a given TIR, each 1% increase in TBR was related to a 0.6 mmol/mol lower HbA(1c) (95% CI 0.4, 0.9; p<0.001), and each 2% increase in TAR level 2 was related to a 0.4 mmol/mol higher HbA(1c) (95% CI 0.1, 0.6; p=0.003). However, neither TIR, TBR nor TAR level 2 were significantly associated with HbA(1c) when accounting for MG. Conclusions/interpretation Inter-individual variations exist between MG and HbA(1c), as well as between TIR and, Funding Agencies|The Swedish State under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R-2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R-2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization–Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be t

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization–Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be t

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization–Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be t

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization–Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be t

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R-2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be

BACKGROUND: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. METHODS: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. CONCLUSION: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clini

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R-2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R-2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be

Background: The GOLD trial demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) managed with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) improved not only glucose control but also overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. This analysis investigated which factors contributed to improved well-being and treatment satisfaction with CGM. Methods: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial comparing CGM versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) over 16 months. Endpoints included well-being measured by the World Health Organization–Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and treatment satisfaction by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) as well as glucose metrics. Multivariable R2-decomposition was used to understand which variables contributed most to treatment satisfaction. Results: A total of 139 participants were included. Multivariable analyses revealed that increased convenience and flexibility contributed to 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 50%-69%) of the improvement in treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version [DTSQc]) observed with CGM, whereas perceived effects on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia only contributed to 6% (95% CI = 2%-11%) of improvements. Significant improvements in well-being (WHO-5) by CGM were observed for the following: feeling cheerful (P = .025), calm and relaxed (P = .024), being active (P = .046), and waking up fresh and rested (P = .044). HbA1c reductions and increased time in range (TIR) were associated with increased treatment satisfaction, whereas glycemic variability was not. HbA1c reduction showed also an association with increased well-being and increased TIR with less diabetes-related distress. Conclusions: While CGM improves glucose control in people with T1D on MDI, increased convenience and flexibility through CGM is of even greater importance for treatment satisfaction and patient well-being. These CGM-mediated effects should be t

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by cl

OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduces HbA(1c) and time spent in hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) when evaluated over shorter time periods. It is unclear to what extent CGM improves and helps to maintain glucose control, treatment satisfaction, diabetes distress, hypoglycemic concerns, and overall well-being over longer periods of time. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial performed over 16 months of CGM treatment in people with T1D treated with MDI. People completing the trial (n = 141) were invited to participate in the current SILVER extension study in which 107 patients continued CGM treatment over 1 year along with the support of a diabetes nurse every 3 months. RESULTS: The primary end point of the change in HbA(1c) over 1.0-1.5 years of CGM use compared with previous self-monitoring of blood glucose during GOLD showed a decrease in HbA(1c) of 0.35% (95% CI 0.19-0.50, P < 0.001). Time spent in hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) and <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL) decreased from 2.1% to 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 5.4% to 2.9% (P < 0.001), respectively. Overall well-being (World Health Organization 5-item well-being index, P = 0.009), treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, P < 0.001), and hypoglycemic confidence (P < 0.001) increased, while hypoglycemic fear (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Worry, P = 0.016) decreased and diabetes distress tended to decrease (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale, P = 0.06). From randomization and screening in GOLD, HbA(1c) was lowered by 0.45% (P < 0.001) and 0.68% (P < 0.001) after 2.3 and 2.5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SILVER study supports beneficial long-term effects from CGM on HbA(1c), hypoglycemia, treatment satisfaction, well-being, and hypoglycemic confidence in people with T1D managed with MDI.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan, Sweden; Dexcom, Inc.; Swedish government (Avtalet om Lakareutbildning och Medicinsk Forskning [Agreement for Medical Education and Research]); NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan, Sweden; Dexcom, Inc.; Swedish government (Avtalet om Lakareutbildning och Medicinsk Forskning [Agreement for Medical Education and Research]); NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan, Sweden; Dexcom, Inc.; Swedish government (Avtalet om Lakareutbildning och Medicinsk Forskning [Agreement for Medical Education and Research]); NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan, Sweden; Dexcom, Inc.; Swedish government (Avtalet om Lakareutbildning och Medicinsk Forskning [Agreement for Medical Education and Research]); NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden

OBJECTIVE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduces HbA(1c) and time spent in hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) when evaluated over shorter time periods. It is unclear to what extent CGM improves and helps to maintain glucose control, treatment satisfaction, diabetes distress, hypoglycemic concerns, and overall well-being over longer periods of time. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The GOLD trial was a randomized crossover trial performed over 16 months of CGM treatment in people with T1D treated with MDI. People completing the trial (n = 141) were invited to participate in the current SILVER extension study in which 107 patients continued CGM treatment over 1 year along with the support of a diabetes nurse every 3 months. RESULTS The primary end point of the change in HbA(1c) over 1.0-1.5 years of CGM use compared with previous self-monitoring of blood glucose during GOLD showed a decrease in HbA(1c) of 0.35% (95% CI 0.19-0.50, P < 0.001). Time spent in hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) and <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL) decreased from 2.1% to 0.6% (P < 0.001) and from 5.4% to 2.9% (P < 0.001), respectively. Overall well-being (World Health Organization 5-item well-being index, P = 0.009), treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, P < 0.001), and hypoglycemic confidence (P < 0.001) increased, while hypoglycemic fear (Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-Worry, P = 0.016) decreased and diabetes distress tended to decrease (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale, P = 0.06). From randomization and screening in GOLD, HbA(1c) was lowered by 0.45% (P < 0.001) and 0.68% (P < 0.001) after 2.3 and 2.5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The SILVER study supports beneficial long-term effects from CGM on HbA(1c), hypoglycemia, treatment satisfaction, well-being, and hypoglycemic confidence in people with T1D managed with MDI., Funding Agencies|Swedish State (ALF grant); Dexcom Inc.

Aim To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Materials and Methods We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. Results Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. Conclusion The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan, Sweden; Dexcom, Inc.; Swedish government (Avtalet om Lakareutbildning och Medicinsk Forskning [Agreement for Medical Education and Research]); NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden

AimsTo describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults with T1D or T2D in the U.S.MethodsParticipants, recruited from the Taking Control of Your Diabetes Research Registry, were ≥19 years old and diagnosed with either T1D or T2D for ≥12 months. Participants completed an online survey on a HIPAA-protected platform.ResultsCompleted surveys were received from 763 T1Ds and 619 T2Ds. Average T1D age was 53.3 (SD = 15.3); average T2D age was 64.9 (SD = 10.3). Both samples were predominantly female, non-Hispanic white and well-educated. Average self-reported HbA1c was 6.9 (SD = 1.0; 52 mmol/mol) for T1Ds and 7.1 (SD = 1.1; 54 mmol/mol) for T2Ds. About 40% of respondents reported that all of their diabetes healthcare appointments at the time were cancelled or postponed, 40% reported a switch to telehealth appointments and almost half reported lower overall satisfaction with these visits (compared to pre-pandemic). There were widespread increases in general and diabetes-related stress and social isolation, and negative effects on disease management. About 25% reported increases in highs, lows, and glucose variability in both groups.ConclusionThere has been a substantive increase in level of diabetes-related and general life stress and social isolation due to the pandemic, with a significant impact on disease management.

AimsTo describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults with T1D or T2D in the U.S.MethodsParticipants, recruited from the Taking Control of Your Diabetes Research Registry, were ≥19 years old and diagnosed with either T1D or T2D for ≥12 months. Participants completed an online survey on a HIPAA-protected platform.ResultsCompleted surveys were received from 763 T1Ds and 619 T2Ds. Average T1D age was 53.3 (SD = 15.3); average T2D age was 64.9 (SD = 10.3). Both samples were predominantly female, non-Hispanic white and well-educated. Average self-reported HbA1c was 6.9 (SD = 1.0; 52 mmol/mol) for T1Ds and 7.1 (SD = 1.1; 54 mmol/mol) for T2Ds. About 40% of respondents reported that all of their diabetes healthcare appointments at the time were cancelled or postponed, 40% reported a switch to telehealth appointments and almost half reported lower overall satisfaction with these visits (compared to pre-pandemic). There were widespread increases in general and diabetes-related stress and social isolation, and negative effects on disease management. About 25% reported increases in highs, lows, and glucose variability in both groups.ConclusionThere has been a substantive increase in level of diabetes-related and general life stress and social isolation due to the pandemic, with a significant impact on disease management.

AimsTo assess between-group differences in participant experiences in a two-arm diabetes distress (DD) reduction RCT and to determine their relationship to clinical outcomes (reductions in DD and HbA1C).MethodsFor high DD adults with Type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥7.5% participating in T1-REDEEM, we evaluated post intervention 5-point ratings of overall program "helpfulness" and program component "helpfulness," along with open-ended feedback statements using 10 qualitative codes. We compared responses of those in OnTrack, a distressed-focused intervention, with KnowIt, an education/management intervention.ResultsThose in OnTrack reported significantly higher levels of overall program helpfulness and greater helpfulness of each component of the program, greater group support, far fewer negative experiences, and more active and meaningful group engagement than those who participated in KnowIt. Ratings of helpfulness were unrelated to reductions in DD and HbA1C in both study arms. As previously reported, these findings occurred despite significant reductions in both DD and HbA1C in both arms with no between-group differences.ConclusionsFindings highlight the importance of addressing the personal experience of diabetes interventions in clinical care as separate, distinct outcomes. Personal experience may not always be related to changes in traditional clinical indicators.

Aim: To assess what drives change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial and identify potential mediators of the treatment effect of semaglutide on HRQoL scores. Materials and Methods: The Short Form (SF)-36v2® questionnaire [comprising physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)] was used to assess changes in HRQoL from baseline to week 104, by treatment, in a prespecified analysis. This post-hoc analysis assessed change in PCS and MCS using the following factors as parameter/covariate, using descriptive statistics and linear regressions: major adverse cardiac events, hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, at least one episode of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, blood pressure, heart rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results: Mean change in overall PCS score was +1.0 with semaglutide versus +0.4 with placebo, and +0.5 versus −0.2 for MCS. The treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo (unadjusted estimate) was 0.7 [(95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.2); P = 0.018] on PCS and this was reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.4 (−0.2, 1.0), P =.167] and body weight [0.3 (−0.3, 0.9), P =.314]. The unadjusted treatment effect on MCS [0.7 (−0.0, 1.5), P =.054] was only reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.3 (−0.4, 1.1), P =.397]. When adjusting for all other parameters separately, the estimated effect of semaglutide on PCS and MCS qualitatively did not change. Conclusions: Semaglutide improved HRQoL versus placebo; greater improvements with semaglutide versus placebo were possibly mediated, in part, by change in HbA1c and body weight. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720446 (SUSTAIN 6).

Aim: To assess what drives change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial and identify potential mediators of the treatment effect of semaglutide on HRQoL scores. Materials and Methods: The Short Form (SF)-36v2® questionnaire [comprising physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)] was used to assess changes in HRQoL from baseline to week 104, by treatment, in a prespecified analysis. This post-hoc analysis assessed change in PCS and MCS using the following factors as parameter/covariate, using descriptive statistics and linear regressions: major adverse cardiac events, hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, at least one episode of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, blood pressure, heart rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results: Mean change in overall PCS score was +1.0 with semaglutide versus +0.4 with placebo, and +0.5 versus −0.2 for MCS. The treatment effect of semaglutide versus placebo (unadjusted estimate) was 0.7 [(95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.2); P = 0.018] on PCS and this was reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.4 (−0.2, 1.0), P =.167] and body weight [0.3 (−0.3, 0.9), P =.314]. The unadjusted treatment effect on MCS [0.7 (−0.0, 1.5), P =.054] was only reduced when adjusted for change in HbA1c [0.3 (−0.4, 1.1), P =.397]. When adjusting for all other parameters separately, the estimated effect of semaglutide on PCS and MCS qualitatively did not change. Conclusions: Semaglutide improved HRQoL versus placebo; greater improvements with semaglutide versus placebo were possibly mediated, in part, by change in HbA1c and body weight. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720446 (SUSTAIN 6).

OBJECTIVE According to recent guidelines, individuals with type 1 diabetes should spend <4.0% of time per day with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL) and <1.0% per day with glucose levels <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the GOLD randomized crossover trial, 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) were randomized to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or conventional therapy with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and evaluated over 16 months. We estimated the association between time spent in hypoglycemia and various mean glucose and HbA1c levels. RESULTS Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) increased significantly with lower mean HbA1c and mean glucose levels during both CGM and conventional therapy. During CGM, 24 (57.1%) individuals with HbA1c <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol) had <1.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L and 23 (54.8%) had <4.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L. During CGM, mean time spent in hypoglycemia for individuals with mean HbA1c 7.0% (52 mmol/mol) was estimated to be 5.4% for <3.9 mmol/L and 1.5% for <3.0 mmol/L. The corresponding values during SMBG were 9.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Individuals with mean glucose levels of 8 mmol/L spent 4.9% units more time with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L and 2.8% units more time <3.0 mmol/L during SMBG compared with CGM. CONCLUSIONS Reaching current targets for time in hypoglycemia while at the same time reaching HbA1c targets is challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI both with CGM and SMBG monitoring. However, CGM is associated with considerably less time in hypoglycemia than SMBG at a broad range of HbA1c levels and is crucial for patients with MDI treatment if they are to have a chance to approach hypoglycemia targets., Funding Agencies|Swedish State (ALF agreement)

AimsThis study evaluated the implementation costs of two group interventions, one focused on diabetes education (KnowIt) and one focused directly on diabetes distress (OnTrack), that reduced diabetes distress and HbA1C in adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in the T1-REDEEM trial.MethodsResources used to provide interventions were enumerated using activity-based micro-costing methods. Costs were assigned to resources in 2017 US dollars. US median wage and benefit rates were used to calculate costs of staff time. Cost per unit change was calculated for diabetes distress and HbA1C.ResultsFor both interventions, per participant implementation costs were approximately $250 and cost per 1.0 percentage point (11 mmol/mol) change in HbA1C was $1400. Cost per unit change in diabetes distress was $364 for KnowIt and $335 for OnTrack. No statistically significant differences in costs were observed.ConclusionsThis is the first study to examine the costs of implementing interventions targeting diabetes distress in the context of T1DM. Both interventions had per participant implementation costs in the lower end of the range of previously examined diabetes self-management interventions ($219 to $5390). These inventions and their costs merit further attention because reducing diabetes distress may impact long term T1DM outcomes.Clinical trials registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT02175732.

ObjectiveWe tested three models to determine how improvements in emotion regulation (ER) and cognitive skills (CS) as a result of intervention operate to affect reductions in diabetes distress DD.MethodsChange data were drawn from the baseline and 9-month T1-REDEEM trial. Adults with type 1 diabetes were recruited from several U.S. states and Toronto, Canada. A primary and two alternative structural equation models were tested to explore the directionality of effect: primary model - changes in ER and CS drive changes in DD; reverse model - changes in DD drive changes in ER and CS; and bidirectional model - changes in ER, CS and DD occur together with no directionality.ResultsAll three models displayed a good fit to the data. The primary model indicated 7 significant directional pathways: improvements in ER and CS operate together to drive reductions in DD. The reverse model only indicated that reductions in DD affected changes in one CS variable; and the bidirectional model indicated only that these results were bidirectional. Reductions in all tested domains of DD occurred together.ConclusionsImprovements in ER and CS drive reductions in DD.Practice implicationsInterventions to reduce high DD should focus on improving ER and CS.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, P<0.001) and glucose levels <54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, P<0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, P<0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., P<0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, P<0.001) and glucose levels <54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, P<0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, P<0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., P<0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, P<0.001) and glucose levels <54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, P<0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, P<0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., P<0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

ObjectiveTo demonstrate how maladaptive emotion regulation (ER) can lead to diabetes distress (DD), with subsequent effects on management and metabolic outcomes among adults with type 1 diabetes.MethodsData are based on pre-intervention assessment for a random controlled trial to reduce DD. Patients were recruited in California, Oregon, Arizona and Ontario, Canada. After screening and consent, patients completed an online assessment and released their most recent laboratory HbA1C. Structural equation modeling was used to define an ER measurement model and test for significant pathways.ResultsThree ER mechanisms combined into a single construct: emotion processing, non-judgment of emotions, non-reactivity to emotions. Models indicated a significant pathway from ER and cognitions to DD to disease management to metabolic control.ConclusionsAs hypothesized, the three ER mechanisms formed a single, coherent ER construct. Patients with poor ER reported high DD; and high DD was linked to poor diabetes management and poor metabolic control.Practice implicationsIdentifying both the level of DD and the ER mechanisms that lead to high DD should be explored in clinical settings. Helping T1Ds to become more aware, less judgmental and less reactive behaviorally to what they feel about diabetes and its management may reduce DD.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of two interventions to reduce diabetes distress (DD) and improve glycemic control among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).Research design and methodsIndividuals with T1D (n = 301) with elevated DD and HbA1c were recruited from multiple settings and randomly assigned to OnTrack, an emotion-focused intervention, or to KnowIt, an educational/behavioral intervention. Each group attended a full-day workshop plus four online meetings over 3 months. Assessments occurred at baseline and 3 and 9 months. Primary and secondary outcomes were change in DD and change in HbA1c, respectively.ResultsWith 12% attrition, both groups demonstrated dramatic reductions in DD (effect size d = 1.06; 78.4% demonstrated a reduction of at least one minimal clinically important difference). There were, however, no significant differences in DD reduction between OnTrack and KnowIt. Moderator analyses indicated that OnTrack provided greater DD reduction to those with initially poorer cognitive or emotion regulation skills, higher baseline DD, or greater initial diabetes knowledge than those in KnowIt. Significant but modest reductions in HbA1c occurred with no between-group differences. Change in DD was modestly associated with change in HbA1c (r = 0.14, P = 0.01), with no significant between-group differences.ConclusionsDD can be successfully reduced among distressed individuals with T1D with elevated HbA1c using both education/behavioral and emotion-focused approaches. Reductions in DD are only modestly associated with reductions in HbA1c. These findings point to the importance of tailoring interventions to address affective, knowledge, and cognitive skills when intervening to reduce DD and improve glycemic control.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, P<0.001) and glucose levels <54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, P<0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, P<0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., P<0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels <70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, P<0.001) and glucose levels <54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, P<0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, P<0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., P<0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051.

Background: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI); we also evaluated factors related to differences in hypoglycemia confidence in this population. Methods: Evaluations were performed from the GOLD randomized trial, an open-label multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial (n=161) over 69 weeks comparing CGM to self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI. Masked CGM and the hypoglycemia confidence questionnaire were used for evaluations. Results: Time with nocturnal hypoglycemia, glucose levels amp;lt;70mg/dL was reduced by 48% (10.2 vs. 19.6min each night, Pamp;lt;0.001) and glucose levels amp;lt;54mg/dL by 65%. (3.1 vs. 8.9min, Pamp;lt;0.001). For the corresponding glucose cutoffs, daytime hypoglycemia was reduced by 40% (29 vs. 49min, Pamp;lt;0.001) and 54% (8 vs. 18min., Pamp;lt;0.001), respectively. Compared with SMBG, CGM use improved hypoglycemia-related confidence in social situations (P=0.016) and confidence in more broadly avoiding serious problems due to hypoglycemia (P=0.0020). Persons also reported greater confidence in detecting and responding to decreasing blood glucose levels (thereby avoiding hypoglycemia) during CGM use (P=0.0033) and indicated greater conviction that they could more freely live their lives despite the risk of hypoglycemia (P=0.022). Conclusion: CGM reduced time in both nocturnal and daytime hypoglycemia in persons with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI and improved hypoglycemia-related confidence, especially in social situations, thus contributing to greater well-being and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092051., Funding Agencies|NU Hospital Group, Trollhattan and Uddevalla, Sweden; NU Hospital Group; Swedish government

IMPORTANCE The majority of individuals with type 1 diabetes do not meet recommended glycemic targets. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Open-label crossover randomized clinical trial conducted in 15 diabetes outpatient clinics in Sweden between February 24, 2014, and June 1, 2016 that included 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of at least 7.5%(58 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive treatment using a continuous glucose monitoring system or conventional treatment for 26 weeks, separated by a washout period of 17 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Difference in HbA(1c) between weeks 26 and 69 for the 2 treatments. Adverse events including severe hypoglycemia were also studied. RESULTS Among 161 randomized participants, mean age was 43.7 years, 45.3% were women, and mean HbA(1c) was 8.6%(70 mmol/mol). A total of 142 participants had follow-up data in both treatment periods. Mean HbA(1c) was 7.92%(63 mmol/mol) during continuous glucose monitoring use and 8.35%(68 mmol/mol) during conventional treatment (mean difference, -0.43% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.29%] or -4.7 [-6.3 to -3.1 mmol/mol]; P < .001). Of 19 secondary end points comprising psychosocial and various glycemic measures, 6 met the hierarchical testing criteria of statistical significance, favoring continuous glucose monitoring compared with conventional treatment. Five patients in the conventional treatment group and 1 patient in the continuous glucose monitoring group had severe hypoglycemia. During washout when patients used conventional therapy, 7 patients had severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections, the use of continuous glucose monitoring compar

Given the importance of glycemic control in the development of diabetes complications, the plethora of tools now available to monitor the day-to-day trends in glycemia is remarkable. In this regard, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been considered a key component of patient management. Arguably, there remains almost universal agreement that SMBG should be available to all diabetic patients regardless of current treatment strategy. However, recently there have been reports that have challenged the current paradigm that all patients should use SMBG and concluded that SMBG for type 2 diabetic patients not on insulin may not be beneficial on glycemic control and must be weighed against the expense and inconvenience. In the counterpoint narrative following the contribution by Malanda et al., Drs. Polonsky and Fisher provide a compelling argument suggesting that while it is evident that implementing SMBG in unstructured ways without training patients and clinicians is likely to be a waste of resources, there are effective and powerful ways to use structured SMBG in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. -William T. Cefalu, MD Editor in Chief, Diabetes Care.

Background The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues. Methods/design The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c ≥ 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010. Discussion The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patient

Background The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues. Methods/design The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c ≥ 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010. Discussion The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patient

AimsTo document the prevalence and 9-month incidence of elevated diabetes distress (DD) and the stability of DD over time using both single threshold and minimal clinically important differences (MCID) approaches.MethodsAdults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (N=224) completed the 28-item T1-Diabetes Distress Scale (T1-DDS) at baseline and 9months. A T1-DDS threshold was identified with spline analysis and MCID was calculated from the standard error of measurement.ResultsAnalyses supported a cut-point of ≥2.0 for elevated DD. The prevalence and 9-month incidence of elevated DD was 42.1% and 54.4%, respectively. MCID was ±0.19 but varied by subscale (.26 to .50). Elevated DD was stable: only 20% crossed 2.0 over 9months. MCID analyses showed that change also occurred among those who remained either below or above 2.0 over time. Change varied by source of distress, with Powerlessness the most prevalent and stable. Using MCID, only participant age, gender and number of complications predicted change.ConclusionsThe prevalence, 9-month incidence and stability of elevated DD are high among adults with T1D, with change based on source of DD. We propose a combined cut-point/MCID framework for measuring change in DD, since each approach reflects unique characteristics of change over time.

William H Polonsky,1,2 Robert R Henry2,3 1Behavioral Diabetes Institute, San Diego, 2University of California, San Diego, 3Center for Metabolic Research, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA Abstract: At least 45% of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) fail to achieve adequate glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). One of the major contributing factors is poor medication adherence. Poor medication adherence in T2D is well documented to be very common and is associated with inadequate glycemic control; increased morbidity and mortality; and increased costs of outpatient care, emergency room visits, hospitalization, and managing complications of diabetes. Poor medication adherence is linked to key nonpatient factors (eg, lack of integrated care in many health care systems and clinical inertia among health care professionals), patient demographic factors (eg, young age, low education level, and low income level), critical patient beliefs about their medications (eg, perceived treatment inefficacy), and perceived patient burden regarding obtaining and taking their medications (eg, treatment complexity, out-of-pocket costs, and hypoglycemia). Specific barriers to medication adherence in T2D, especially those that are potentially modifiable, need to be more clearly identified; strategies that target poor adherence should focus on reducing medication burden and addressing negative medication beliefs of patients. Solutions to these problems would require behavioral innovations as well as new methods and modes of drug delivery. Keywords: glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, medication adherence, psychosocial, type 2 diabetes