Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Oct:144:200-212.
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.09.002. Epub 2018 Sep 8.

Integrated personalized diabetes management improves glycemic control in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Results of the PDM-ProValue study program

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Integrated personalized diabetes management improves glycemic control in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: Results of the PDM-ProValue study program

Bernhard Kulzer et al. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018 Oct.
Free article

Abstract

Aims: Globally, many patients with insulin-treated type-2 diabetes are suboptimally controlled. The PDM-ProValue study program evaluated whether integrated personalized diabetes management (iPDM) has the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Methods: 101 practices with 907 patients participated in the 12-month, prospective, controlled, cluster-randomized study program. HbA1c levels, therapy changes, frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, patient reported outcomes, and physician satisfaction were assessed.

Results: iPDM led to a greater reduction in HbA1c after 12 months vs. usual care (-0.5%, p < 0.0001 vs. -0.3%, p < 0.0001), (Diff. 0.2%, p = 0.0324). Most of the HbA1c reduction occurred after 3 months and remained stable thereafter. The percentage of patients with therapy adjustments was higher in the iPDM group at all visits (p < 0.01 at week 3, month 3, month 6). Patient adherence at month 12 was higher in the iPDM group compared to baseline (Odds ratio = 2.39; p = 0.0003); also, patient treatment satisfaction (DTSQc: 12.2 vs. 10.4, δ = 1.78, p = 0.004; DTSQs: 31.0 vs. 30.0, δ = 0.924, p = 0.02), and physician satisfaction was higher in the intervention group.

Conclusions: iPDM improved the use of diagnostic data leading to better glycemic control, more timely treatment adjustments (indicating reduced clinical inertia), and increased patient adherence and treatment satisfaction among patients and physicians.

Keywords: Clinical inertia; Diabetes management; Digital tools; Personalized diabetes therapy; SMBG; Type 2 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources