Key result
Glucose meter use linked to ~1.3% lower mean HbA1c and fewer diabetes-related complications.
Why the study?
Does self-monitoring of blood glucose using portable glucose meters improve glycemic control in adults with T2DM?
Cross-Sectional (n=2,997)
Yes
Does self-monitoring of blood glucose using portable glucose meters improve glycemic control in adults with T2DM?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.8% vs 9.1%
p-value: p=<.001
Self-monitoring of blood glucose using a glucose meter is associated with significantly better glycemic control and fewer reported complications among adults with T2DM in Northern India.
Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a significant public health challenge in India, with rising prevalence and high risk of complications due to inadequate glycemic control. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) using portable glucose meters is a key component of diabetes self-care, yet its adoption and effectiveness in India remain suboptimal. This study aimed to assess patterns of glucose meter use and its impact on glycemic control among adults with T2DM in Northern India. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted between March and August 2023 as part of the Uttar Pradesh-Research Society for the Study of Diabetes in India (UP-RSSDI) registry. Adult patients (≥18 years) with T2DM attending 22 diverse healthcare sites were enrolled consecutively after informed consent. Participants were classified as glucose meter users or non-users based on self-report. Demographic, clinical, and glycemic parameters were recorded and compared between groups, with adjusted analyses controlling for age, gender, and disease duration. Results: Of 2,997 participants, 75.4% reported using a glucose meter. Glucose meter users were older (53.5 ± 11.9 vs. 47.9 ± 12.6 years, P < .001) and had longer T2DM duration (11.4 ± 8.2 vs. 9.2 ± 7.8 years, P < .001) than glucose meter non-users. Adjusted mean HbA1c was significantly lower among glucose meter users compared with glucose meter non- users (7.8 ± 0.1% vs. 9.1 ± 0.1%; P < .001). Similar trends were observed for fasting blood glucose (137.9 ± 1.7 vs. 152.9 ± 2.9 mg/dL; P < .001) and post-prandial levels (223.2 ± 2.5 vs. 286.4 ± 4.3 mg/dL; P < .001). Glucose meter users performed SMBG more frequently in the previous month and reported fewer diabetes-related complications (22.2% vs. 29.5%, P < .001). Conclusion: Glucose meter use was associated with better glycemic control and with a lower reported prevalence of diabetes-related complications among adults with T2DM in Northern India. Despite high adoption rates, one-fourth of patients did not use a glucose meter, highlighting the need for enhanced patient education, structured SMBG protocols, and improved accessibility. Integrating SMBG into routine diabetes care could substantially improve outcomes in resource-limited settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agrawal et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=2,997). Glucose meter use vs. Glucose meter non-users was evaluated on Adjusted mean HbA1c (p=<.001). Glucose meter use was associated with significantly lower adjusted mean HbA1c compared to non-use (7.8% vs. 9.1%; P<.001) and fewer diabetes-related complications (22.2% vs. 29.5%; P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: