Merely proves there is no point in home monitoring if you ignore the results
The paper itself shows that the home BG readings were totally ignored
in deciding the therapy for each individual. So even if home BG readings
were elevated, they were not used to change therapy, as the treatments
were solely determined by HbA1c readings. The patients might as well have
done daily iridology. These authors might get the Nobel prize for the
bleeding obvious. The only real conclusion that can be made from this data
is "We have proven that there is no point in home monitoring if your
doctor ignores the results, just as we have done".
We used an identical treatment algorithm for dietary and
pharmacological management of glycaemia for both groups based on HbA1c
targets (figure 1)Go. Blood concentrations of HbA1c, lipids, and
electrolytes were measured at or before each clinic and results were
discussed with patients in the context of the treatment targets.
Measurement of HbA1c was performed in the local hospital laboratory with a
diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT) aligned HbA1c assay.2 All
laboratories participated in HbA1c external quality assurance, which was
satisfactory for the duration of the study. All other laboratory tests
were also performed in the local hospital laboratory, where staff were
blinded to treatment allocation.
Competing interests: No competing interests