Cited by 44Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Evaluation of a diabetes remote monitoring program facilitated by connected glucose meters for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: randomized crossover trial

Open access
Amante, Daniel J, Harlan, David M, Lemon, Stephenie C, McManus, David D, Olaitan, Oladapo O, Pagoto, Sherry L, Gerber, Ben S, Thompson, Michael J·2021·JMIR Diabetes

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) experience increased morbidity, increased mortality, and higher cost of care. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a critical component of diabetes self-management with established diabetes outcome benefits. Technological advancements in blood glucose meters, including cellular-connected devices that automatically upload SMBG data to secure cloud-based databases, allow for improved sharing and monitoring of SMBG data. Real-time monitoring of SMBG data presents opportunities to provide timely support to patients that is responsive to abnormal SMBG recordings. Such diabetes remote monitoring programs can provide patients with poorly controlled T2D additional support needed to improve critical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate 6 months of a diabetes remote monitoring program facilitated by cellular-connected glucose meter, access to a diabetes coach, and support responsive to abnormal blood glucose recordings greater than 400 mg/dL or below 50 mg/dL in adults with poorly controlled T2D. Methods: Patients (N=119) receiving care at a diabetes center of excellence participated in a two-arm, 12-month randomized crossover study. The intervention included a cellular-connected glucose meter and phone-based diabetes coaching provided by Livongo Health. The coach answered questions, assisted in goal setting, and provided support in response to abnormal glucose levels. One group received the intervention for 6 months before returning to usual care (IV/UC). The other group received usual care before enrolling in the intervention (UC/IV) for 6 months. Change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the primary outcome, and change in treatment satisfaction was the secondary outcome. Results: Improvements in mean HbA1c were seen in both groups during the first 6 months (IV/UC −1.1%, SD 1.5 vs UC/IV −0.8%, SD 1.5; P<.001). After crossover, there was no significant change in HbA1c in IV/UC (mean HbA1c change +0.2, SD 1.7, P=.41); however, those in UC/IV showed further improvement (mean HbA1c change −0.4%, SD 1.0, P=.008). A mixed-effects model showed no significant treatment effect (IV vs UC) over 12 months (P=.06). However, participants with higher baseline HbA1c and those in the first time period experienced greater improvements in HbA1c. Both groups reported similar improvements in treatment satisfaction throughout the study. Conclusions: Patients enrolled in the diabetes remote monitoring program intervention experienced improvements in HbA1c and treatment satisfaction similar to usual care at a specialty diabetes center. Future studies on diabetes remote monitoring programs should incorporate scheduled coaching components and involve family members and caregivers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124043; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124043

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/25574

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amante, D. J., Harlan, D. M., Lemon, S. C., McManus, D. D., Olaitan, O. O., Pagoto, S. L., Gerber, B. S., & Thompson, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Amante, Daniel J
Venue
JMIR Diabetes
Published
2021-03-11
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
e25574
ISSN
2371-4379 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3120843836
Cited by
44
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001455)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, uncontrolled diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose, HbA1c, glycemic control, treatment satisfaction, diabetes self-management, digital health interventions, crossover trial, usual care comparison, treatment effect heterogeneity, baseline HbA1c

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