Observational studyDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2022
Non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitoring for control of hypoglycaemia (COACH): Results of a post-approval observational study.
Observational study in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic literature review on the burden of diabetic ketoacidosis in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing non-adjunctive CGM safety at home and in new markets (ANSHIN).Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2023Trial
- A Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Algorithms for Adjusting Mealtime Insulin Doses Based on CGM Trend Arrows in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from an Exploratory Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Feasibility of a semiautomated, individualized coaching intervention for glycemic management in adults with type 1 diabetes: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in the Treatment of Patients with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in Australia.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Cost-Utility of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in Sweden.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
- Population-Based Study on the Implementation of Flash Glucose Monitoring and Severe Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Asia-Pacific Perspectives on the Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Optimizing Diabetes Management.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Review
- Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Review
- AMCP Market Insights Health Plan Best Practice: Implementing continuous glucose monitoring to improve patient outcomes in diabetes.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2024Review
- The Influence of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Psychosocial Outcomes in Insulin-Using Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Analytical Performance of the Factory-Calibrated Flash Glucose Monitoring System FreeStyle Libre2Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Non-adjunctive continuous glucose monitoring for control of hypoglycaemia (COACH): Results of a post-approval observational study.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrior to the Continuous Monitoring and Control of Hypoglycaemia (COACH) study described herein, no study had been powered to evaluate the impact of non-adjunctive RT-CGM use on the rate of debilitating moderate or severe hypoglycaemic events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsIn this 12-month observational study, adults with insulin-requiring diabetes who were new to RT-CGM participated in a 6-month control phase where insulin dosing decisions were based on self monitoring of blood glucose values, followed by a 6-month phase where decisions were based on RT-CGM data (i.e. non-adjunctive RT-CGM use); recommendations for RT-CGM use were made according to sites' usual care. The primary outcome was change in debilitating moderate (requiring second-party assistance) and severe (resulting in seizures or loss of consciousness) hypoglycaemic event frequency. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA1c and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) frequency.
resultsA total of 519 participants with mean (SD) age 50.3 (16.1) years and baseline HbA1c 8.0% (1.4%) completed the study, of whom 32.8% had impaired hypoglycaemia awareness and 33.5% had type 2 diabetes (T2D). The mean (SE) per-patient frequency of hypoglycaemic events decreased by 63% from 0.08 (0.016) during the SMBG phase to 0.03 (0.010) during the RT-CGM phase (p = 0.005). HbA1c decreased during the RT-CGM phase both for participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and T2D and there was a trend towards larger reductions among individuals with higher baseline HbA1c.
conclusionsAmong adults with insulin-requiring diabetes, non-adjunctive use of RT-CGM data is safe, resulting in significantly fewer debilitating hypoglycaemic events than management using SMBG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.