Pre-post clinical trial demonstrates high acceptability and increased glucagon prescribing in patients with diabetes, suggesting feasible primary care hypoglycemia prevention.
OBJECTIVE Hypoglycemia, a major cause of morbidity for people with diabetes, is underrecognized in primary care, leading to underuse of risk mitigation strategies. This study reports the development and acceptability/feasibility testing of the Hypoglycemia Prevention Program (HPP), an electronic health record–integrated toolkit for primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The HPP was developed through stakeholder engagement and included a pre-visit hypoglycemia history survey, primary care provider (PCP) hypoglycemia toolkit, and patient self-management handout. The HPP pilot study was a pre-post clinical trial at one primary care practice. Participants were adults with diabetes treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, their PCPs, and clinic staff. The primary outcome was acceptability; exploratory outcomes included pre- to postintervention change in PCP hypoglycemia prevention actions, self-reported hypoglycemia, and optional blinded 10-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS The intervention was completed by 31 of 35 enrolled patients with diabetes (89%) for whom it triggered frequent hypoglycemia alerts. The intervention was rated acceptable or completely acceptable by 87% of patients and 100% of participating PCPs (n = 12) and clinic staff (n = 5). PCPs increased indicated glucagon prescribing from pre- to postintervention (0% preintervention to 32% postintervention, P = 0.003); there were small increases in CGM initiation and deintensification of hypoglycemia-causing medications. Self-reported and CGM-detected hypoglycemia decreased from pre- to postintervention, although with incomplete ascertainment and low CGM participation (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS A hypoglycemia prevention program designed for primary care is feasible to implement and acceptable to clinical and patient stakeholders, with evidence of improved hypoglycemia prevention efforts. Further efficacy evaluation is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pilla et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: