Teleassistance for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a Pilot Study.
COVID-19
chronic disease
diabetes
effectiveness
management
technology
teleassistance
telehealth
telemedicine
time in range
type 1 diabetes
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 04 2021
06 04 2021
Historique:
received:
24
09
2020
accepted:
16
03
2021
revised:
29
12
2020
pubmed:
27
3
2021
medline:
23
4
2021
entrez:
26
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Telemedicine use in chronic disease management has markedly increased during health emergencies due to COVID-19. Diabetes and technologies supporting diabetes care, including glucose monitoring devices, software analyzing glucose data, and insulin delivering systems, would facilitate remote and structured disease management. Indeed, most of the currently available technologies to store and transfer web-based data to be shared with health care providers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we provided our patients the opportunity to manage their diabetes remotely by implementing technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 virtual visits on glycemic control parameters among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the lockdown period. This prospective observational study included T1D patients who completed 2 virtual visits during the lockdown period. The glucose outcomes that reflected the benefits of the virtual consultation were time in range (TIR), time above range, time below range, mean daily glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and glycemic variability. This metric was generated using specific computer programs that automatically upload data from the devices used to monitor blood or interstitial glucose levels. If needed, we changed the ongoing treatment at the first virtual visit. Among 209 eligible patients with T1D, 166 completed 2 virtual visits, 35 failed to download glucose data, and 8 declined the visit. Among the patients not included in the study, we observed a significantly lower proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users (n=7/43, 16% vs n=155/166, 93.4% and n=9/43, 21% vs n=128/166, 77.1%, respectively; P<.001) compared to patients who completed the study. TIR significantly increased from the first (62%, SD 18%) to the second (65%, SD 16%) virtual visit (P=.02); this increase was more marked among patients using the traditional meter (n=11; baseline TIR=55%, SD 17% and follow-up TIR=66%, SD 13%; P=.01) than among those using CGM, and in those with a baseline GMI of ≥7.5% (n=46; baseline TIR=45%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=53%, SD 18%; P<.001) than in those with a GMI of <7.5% (n=120; baseline TIR=68%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=69%, SD 15%; P=.98). The only variable independently associated with TIR was the change of ongoing therapy. The unstandardized beta coefficient (B) and 95% CI were 5 (95% CI 0.7-8.0) (P=.02). The type of glucose monitoring device and insulin delivery systems did not influence glucometric parameters. These findings indicate that the structured virtual visits help maintain and improve glycemic control in situations where in-person visits are not feasible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Telemedicine use in chronic disease management has markedly increased during health emergencies due to COVID-19. Diabetes and technologies supporting diabetes care, including glucose monitoring devices, software analyzing glucose data, and insulin delivering systems, would facilitate remote and structured disease management. Indeed, most of the currently available technologies to store and transfer web-based data to be shared with health care providers.
OBJECTIVE
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we provided our patients the opportunity to manage their diabetes remotely by implementing technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 virtual visits on glycemic control parameters among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the lockdown period.
METHODS
This prospective observational study included T1D patients who completed 2 virtual visits during the lockdown period. The glucose outcomes that reflected the benefits of the virtual consultation were time in range (TIR), time above range, time below range, mean daily glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and glycemic variability. This metric was generated using specific computer programs that automatically upload data from the devices used to monitor blood or interstitial glucose levels. If needed, we changed the ongoing treatment at the first virtual visit.
RESULTS
Among 209 eligible patients with T1D, 166 completed 2 virtual visits, 35 failed to download glucose data, and 8 declined the visit. Among the patients not included in the study, we observed a significantly lower proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users (n=7/43, 16% vs n=155/166, 93.4% and n=9/43, 21% vs n=128/166, 77.1%, respectively; P<.001) compared to patients who completed the study. TIR significantly increased from the first (62%, SD 18%) to the second (65%, SD 16%) virtual visit (P=.02); this increase was more marked among patients using the traditional meter (n=11; baseline TIR=55%, SD 17% and follow-up TIR=66%, SD 13%; P=.01) than among those using CGM, and in those with a baseline GMI of ≥7.5% (n=46; baseline TIR=45%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=53%, SD 18%; P<.001) than in those with a GMI of <7.5% (n=120; baseline TIR=68%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=69%, SD 15%; P=.98). The only variable independently associated with TIR was the change of ongoing therapy. The unstandardized beta coefficient (B) and 95% CI were 5 (95% CI 0.7-8.0) (P=.02). The type of glucose monitoring device and insulin delivery systems did not influence glucometric parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that the structured virtual visits help maintain and improve glycemic control in situations where in-person visits are not feasible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33769945
pii: v23i4e24552
doi: 10.2196/24552
pmc: PMC8025914
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
Insulin
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e24552Informations de copyright
©Martina Parise, Linda Tartaglione, Antonio Cutruzzolà, Maria Ida Maiorino, Katherine Esposito, Dario Pitocco, Agostino Gnasso, Concetta Irace. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.04.2021.
Références
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Jun;22(6):449-453
pubmed: 32383989
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020 Jul - Aug;14(4):273-276
pubmed: 32283497
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020 Sep;167:108354
pubmed: 32739380
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Jun;22(6):462-467
pubmed: 32421355
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 9;22(6):e19264
pubmed: 32463377
PLoS One. 2015 May 14;10(5):e0126858
pubmed: 25974092
Diabetes Ther. 2020 May 11;:1-11
pubmed: 32395187
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2020 Sep 24;30(10):1800-1805
pubmed: 32669240
Diabet Med. 2020 Jul;37(7):1087-1089
pubmed: 32365233
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Feb 8;:103286
pubmed: 30827741
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Jun;22(6):444-448
pubmed: 32396395
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 Mar;13(3):214-22
pubmed: 23260128
Diabetes Care. 2019 Aug;42(8):1593-1603
pubmed: 31177185
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Dec 14;9(5):e37
pubmed: 18093904
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Feb;23(2):104-109
pubmed: 32678672
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Jun;22(6):431-439
pubmed: 32302499
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Nov 21;5(11):e170
pubmed: 29162560
Diabetes Care. 2018 Nov;41(11):2275-2280
pubmed: 30224348