CGM in Utah Valley

NCT ID: NCT04313803

Last Updated: 2020-03-18

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Total Enrollment

1500 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-04-01

Study Completion Date

2021-04-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to replicate the positive impact observed in IRB #1050955, but conduct this over a shorter period to potentially maximize patient outcomes and make care more affordable. Intermountain intends to build a diabetes program with CGM based on the findings. Senior stakeholders, clinicians and operators are aligned on this vision including the Community Based Care triad, Executive Leadership Team, and our Diabetes Prevention Program.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Overview

Approximately 30 million Americans, or 9% of the population has diabetes, a condition in which a person does not make enough insulin, or the body cannot use its own to effectively manage blood glucose levels. Improper diabetes management is associated with severe comorbidities which include: heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, ocular problems, dental disease, nerve damage, and vascularity issues. The epidemic continues to challenge systems like Intermountain Healthcare, an accountable care organization (ACO), since diabetes cost $327 billion per year (representing $1 in every $7 dollars spent) on healthcare in the United States. Furthermore, people with diagnosed diabetes incur average medical expenditures of $16,752 per year, of which about $9,601 is directly attributed to diabetes. New treatment options are needed to manage population health, especially with 84 million adults having been diagnosed with prediabetes diabetes.

In an effort to reduce the physical, economic and social burden of diabetes, several healthcare systems have evaluated the use of telehealth to monitor glucose levels. In a previous metanalysis, the authors demonstrated that telehealth interventions produced a small, but significant improvement in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels compared with usual care (mean difference: -0.55, 95% CI: -0.73 to - 0.36). The Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee also showed that the blood glucose home telemonitoring technologies they used yielded a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c of \~0.50% in comparison to usual care when used adjunctively to a broader telemedicine initiative for adults with type 2 diabetes.

1.2 Previous Work

Intermountain Healthcare conducted a pilot study in the Reimagine Primary Care (RPC) clinics to evaluate if six months of CGM could improve patient outcomes (IRB #1050955). A total of 99 patients remained enrolled for the full time period (n=50 CGM, n=49 standard of care (SOC)), and data showed a improvement in glucose levels, less primary care and specialty appointments, a reduction in emergency department (ED) encounters, less labs ordered, and a cumulative body mass index (BMI) improvement. Furthermore, nearly all participants reported being willing to engage in another future pilot, and the vast improvements were attributed to subjects use of real-time data.

Primary analyses

Cost of care for fee-for-value patients (specifically PMPM savings)

Secondary analyses

Frequency of hypoglycemic events, healthcare utilization per count of inpatient/outpatient visits, cost of care, current HEDIS performance on diabetes and behavioral health measures, coding specificity for diabetes, emergency department visit per 1000 rate, overall and for patients with diabetes.

Power analyses

Data from IRB #1050955 has shown significant changes in cost, care and utilization with only a sample of 50 CGM users. The effect size is currently being calculated by the study statistician, but most of the outcome variables comparing CGM to standard of care device were p\<0.05. Given that this will now include a much larger population, and 30x participant increase, the investigators will have sufficient power to deduce differences should they occur.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Diabetes Mellitus Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Diabetes

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

American Fork

CGM usage months 1 and 3

CGM

Intervention Type DEVICE

Dexcom CGM system

Central Orem

CGM usage for month 1

CGM

Intervention Type DEVICE

Dexcom CGM system

North Canyon, Saratoga Springs, and Lehi

CGM usage for 1-3 months

CGM

Intervention Type DEVICE

Dexcom CGM system

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

CGM

Dexcom CGM system

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients (18-80 years of age) with type ll diabetes, having an HbA1c ≥6.5%, treated within five Intermountain Healthcare Utah Valley clinics. Patients must have access to a smart phone to download applications, have Bluetooth capabilities for data sharing, and log/view their continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients who are pregnant, not classified as having diabetes based on A1c levels, and age ≤ 17 or ≥ 81 years, or diagnosis of dementia.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

DexCom, Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

Intermountain Health Care, Inc.

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Elizabeth Joy, MD, MPH

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Intermountain Health Care, Inc.

Brad Isaacson, PhD, MBA, MSF, PMP

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Intermountain Health Care, Inc.

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Elizabeth Joy, MD, MPH

Role: CONTACT

(801) 442-3721

Brad Isaacson, PhD, MBA, MSF, PMP

Role: CONTACT

(801) 442-5737

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Lee PA, Greenfield G, Pappas Y. The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 26;18(1):495. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3274-8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29940936 (View on PubMed)

Ekhlaspour L, Mondesir D, Lautsch N, Balliro C, Hillard M, Magyar K, Radocchia LG, Esmaeili A, Sinha M, Russell SJ. Comparative Accuracy of 17 Point-of-Care Glucose Meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 May;11(3):558-566. doi: 10.1177/1932296816672237. Epub 2016 Oct 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27697848 (View on PubMed)

Verkuilen J. Explanatory Item Response Models: A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach by P. de Boeck and M. Wilson and Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models by A. Skrondal and S. Rabe-Hesketh. Psychometrika. 2006 Jun;71(2):415-418. doi: 10.1007/s11336-005-1333-7. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28197954 (View on PubMed)

Fong Y, Rue H, Wakefield J. Bayesian inference for generalized linear mixed models. Biostatistics. 2010 Jul;11(3):397-412. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp053. Epub 2009 Dec 4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19966070 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

IHC IRB#: 1051315

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Examining The Role of CGM in T2DM
NCT01614262 COMPLETED NA
Dexcom G6 Intervention Study
NCT03877068 COMPLETED NA