Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) diabetes prevention program (DPP) has formed the foundation for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) prevention efforts and lifestyle change modifications in multiple care settings. To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial has verified the efficacy of a fully mobile version of CDC’s diabetes prevention program (DPP). Objective This study aimed to investigate the long-term weight loss and glycemic efficacy of a mobile-delivered DPP compared with a control group receiving usual medical care. Methods Adults with prediabetes (N=202) were recruited from a clinic and randomized to either a mobile-delivered, coach-guided DPP (Noom) or a control group that received regular medical care including a paper-based DPP curriculum and no formal intervention. The intervention group learned how to use the Noom program, how to interact with their coach, and the importance of maintaining motivation. They had access to an interactive coach-to-participant interface and group messaging, daily challenges for behavior change, DPP-based education articles, food logging, and automated feedback. Primary outcomes included changes in weight and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Exploratory secondary outcomes included program engagement as a predictor of changes in weight and HbA1c levels. Results A total of 202 participants were recruited and randomized into the intervention (n=101) or control group (n=99). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, changes in the participants’ weight and BMI were significantly different at 6 months between the intervention and control groups, but there was no difference in HbA1c levels (mean difference 0.004%, SE 0.05; P=.94). Weight and BMI were lower in the intervention group by −2.64 kg (SE 0.71; P<.001) and −0.99 kg/m2 (SE 0.29; P=.001), respectively. These differences persisted at 12 months. However, in the analyses that did not involve ITT, program completers achieved a significant weight loss of 5.6% (SE 0.81; P<.001) at 6 months, maintaining 4.7% (SE 0.88; P<.001) of their weight loss at 12 months. The control group lost −0.15% at 6 months (SE 0.64; P=.85) and gained 0.33% (SE 0.70; P=.63) at 12 months. Those randomized to the intervention group who did not start the program had no meaningful weight or HbA1c level change, similar to the control group. At 1 year, the intervention group showed a 0.23% reduction in HbA1c levels; those who completed the intervention showed a 0.28% reduction. Those assigned to the control group had a 0.16% reduction in HbA1c levels. Conclusions This novel mobile-delivered DPP achieved significant weight loss reductions for up to 1 year compared with usual care. This type of intervention reduces the risk of overt diabetes without the added barriers of in-person interventions. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03865342; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03865342

This study was the first to examine disposal practices and associated risk factors for poor disposal methods among patients in a U.S. tertiary medical center. A large portion of patients was found to have improper sharps disposal practices. Prior formal training in sharps disposal was associated with higher rates of correct practices, suggesting that increased emphasis on provider-patient education can lead to significant improvement in disposal habits.

Objective: We assessed the clinical utility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) (Dexcom G6) in managing diabetes patients with severe COVID-19 infection following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We present retrospective analysis of masked rtCGM in 30 patients with severe COVID-19. rtCGM was used during the first 24 hours for comparison with arterial-line point of care (POC) values, where clinicians utilized rtCGM data to adjust insulin therapy in patients if rtCGM values were within 20% of point-of-care (POC) values during the masked period. An investigator-developed survey was administered to assess nursing staff ( n = 66) perceptions regarding the use of rtCGM in the ICU. Results: rtCGM data were used to adjust insulin therapy in 30 patients. Discordance between rtCGM and POC glucose values were observed in 11 patients but the differences were not considered clinically significant. Mean sensor glucose decreased from 235.7 ± 42.1 mg/dL (13.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) to 202.7 ± 37.6 mg/dL (11.1 ± 2.1 mmol/L) with rtCGM management. Improvements in mean sensor glucose were observed in 77% of patients ( n = 23) with concomitant reductions in daily POC measurements in 50% of patients ( n = 15) with rtCGM management. The majority (63%) of nurses reported that rtCGM was helpful for improving care for patients with diabetes patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 49% indicated that rtCGM reduced their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Conclusions: Our findings provide a strong rationale to increase clinician awareness for the adoption and implementation of rtCGM systems in the ICU. Additional studies are needed to further understand the utility of rtCGM in critically ill patients and other clinical care settings.