Baseline glycated hemoglobin values predict the magnitude of glycemic improvement in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: subgroup analyses from the DIAMOND study program
Open accessAbstract
The DIAMOND study demonstrated that the addition of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) effectively lowers glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), treated with multiple daily injections (MDI). This post hoc analysis investigated whether DIAMOND study participants at progressively higher baseline HbA1c levels benefit from using rtCGM. We examined outcomes data from a large, randomized, controlled trial of MDI-treated participants with T1D (N = 158) and T2D (N = 158), comparing monitoring by rtCGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The primary outcome was the magnitude of HbA1c reductions among study participants within elevated baseline HbA1c levels (≥8.0%–10.0%, ≥8.5%–10.0%, and ≥9.0%–10.0%). Analyses were performed on three subgroups: T1D, T2D, and combined T1D/T2D. The full T1D analysis population had a mean baseline HbA1c value of 8.6 ± 0.6% (range 7.5%–9.9%), randomized to rtCGM (n = 105) or control (n = 53). The full T2D analysis population had a mean baseline HbA1c value of 8.5 ± 0.6% (range 7.5%–9.9%), randomized to rtCGM (n = 79) or control (n = 79). Participants had improvements in glycemic status regardless of monitoring method. In the three subgroups, the change in HbA1c was significantly greater in rtCGM participants compared to SMBG at all predefined baseline HbA1c levels at 12 and 24 weeks. Among the rtCGM participants, the change in HbA1c was numerically greatest at the highest baseline HbA1c subgroup (≥9.0%). Participants with elevated baseline HbA1c had improvements in glycemic status regardless of monitoring method. However, the magnitudes of improvements appeared greater among participants using rtCGM.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a subset of participants with baseline HbA1c ≥ 8%, the magnitude of the observed difference was larger (approximately 1.5%).
“Similar to other investigations (34, 37), in a subset of participants with suboptimal glycemic control (those with baseline HbA1c ≥ 8%), the magnitude of the observed difference was larger (approximately 1.5% here) which may reflect regression to the mean phenomenon.”
From Observed Glycemic and Psychosocial Benefits in the Prospective Bigfoot Unity Real World Study: A 6-Month Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Billings, L. K., Parkin, C. G., & Price, D.
- Affiliations
- Endeavor Health (US)
- Department of Research, CGParkin Communications, Inc., Boulder City, Nevada.
- Dexcom (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parkin, Christopher G.
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 561-565
- ISSN
- 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8593
- PMC
- PMC6080123
- OpenAlex
- W2883817914
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Dexcom
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- HbA1c, real-time continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, multiple daily insulin injections, self-monitoring of blood glucose, glycemic control, baseline HbA1c, subgroup analysis
- MeSH terms
- Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Quality of Life, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review