Algorithm-Enabled, Personalized Glucose Management for Type 1 Diabetes at the Population Scale: Prospective Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

continuous glucose monitor diabetes personalized medicine population health telehealth

Journal

JMIR diabetes
ISSN: 2371-4379
Titre abrégé: JMIR Diabetes
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101719410

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 20 01 2021
accepted: 22 02 2022
revised: 19 05 2021
entrez: 6 6 2022
pubmed: 7 6 2022
medline: 7 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) is recommended as the standard of care by the American Diabetes Association for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Few hardware-agnostic, open-source, whole-population tools are available to facilitate the use of CGM data by clinicians such as physicians and certified diabetes educators. This study aimed to develop a tool that identifies patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while minimizing the number of patients reviewed by a certified diabetes educator or physician using the tool. We used consensus guidelines to develop timely interventions for diabetes excellence (TIDE), an open-source hardware-agnostic tool to analyze CGM data to identify patients with deteriorating glucose control by generating generic flags (eg, mean glucose [MG] >170 mg/dL) and personalized flags (eg, MG increased by >10 mg/dL). In a prospective 7-week study in a pediatric T1D clinic, we measured the sensitivity of TIDE in identifying patients appropriate for contact and the number of patients reviewed. We simulated measures of the workload generated by TIDE, including the average number of time in range (TIR) flags per patient per review period, on a convenience sample of eight external data sets, 6 from clinical trials and 2 donated by research foundations. Over the 7 weeks of evaluation, the clinical population increased from 56 to 64 patients. The mean sensitivity was 99% (242/245; SD 2.5%), and the mean reduction in the number of patients reviewed was 42.6% (182/427; SD 10.9%). The 8 external data sets contained 1365 patients with 30,017 weeks of data collected by 7 types of CGMs. The rates of generic and personalized TIR flags per patient per review period were, respectively, 0.15 and 0.12 in the data set with the lowest average MG (141 mg/dL) and 0.95 and 0.22 in the data set with the highest average MG (207 mg/dL). TIDE is an open-source hardware-agnostic tool for personalized analysis of CGM data at the clinical population scale. In a pediatric T1D clinic, TIDE identified 99% of patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while reducing the number of patients reviewed by certified diabetes care and education specialists by 43%. For each of the 8 external data sets, simulation of the use of TIDE produced fewer than 0.25 personalized TIR flags per patient per review period. The use of TIDE to support telemedicine-based T1D care may facilitate sensitive and efficient guideline-based population health management.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) is recommended as the standard of care by the American Diabetes Association for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Few hardware-agnostic, open-source, whole-population tools are available to facilitate the use of CGM data by clinicians such as physicians and certified diabetes educators.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to develop a tool that identifies patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while minimizing the number of patients reviewed by a certified diabetes educator or physician using the tool.
METHODS METHODS
We used consensus guidelines to develop timely interventions for diabetes excellence (TIDE), an open-source hardware-agnostic tool to analyze CGM data to identify patients with deteriorating glucose control by generating generic flags (eg, mean glucose [MG] >170 mg/dL) and personalized flags (eg, MG increased by >10 mg/dL). In a prospective 7-week study in a pediatric T1D clinic, we measured the sensitivity of TIDE in identifying patients appropriate for contact and the number of patients reviewed. We simulated measures of the workload generated by TIDE, including the average number of time in range (TIR) flags per patient per review period, on a convenience sample of eight external data sets, 6 from clinical trials and 2 donated by research foundations.
RESULTS RESULTS
Over the 7 weeks of evaluation, the clinical population increased from 56 to 64 patients. The mean sensitivity was 99% (242/245; SD 2.5%), and the mean reduction in the number of patients reviewed was 42.6% (182/427; SD 10.9%). The 8 external data sets contained 1365 patients with 30,017 weeks of data collected by 7 types of CGMs. The rates of generic and personalized TIR flags per patient per review period were, respectively, 0.15 and 0.12 in the data set with the lowest average MG (141 mg/dL) and 0.95 and 0.22 in the data set with the highest average MG (207 mg/dL).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
TIDE is an open-source hardware-agnostic tool for personalized analysis of CGM data at the clinical population scale. In a pediatric T1D clinic, TIDE identified 99% of patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while reducing the number of patients reviewed by certified diabetes care and education specialists by 43%. For each of the 8 external data sets, simulation of the use of TIDE produced fewer than 0.25 personalized TIR flags per patient per review period. The use of TIDE to support telemedicine-based T1D care may facilitate sensitive and efficient guideline-based population health management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35666570
pii: v7i2e27284
doi: 10.2196/27284
pmc: PMC9210201
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e27284

Subventions

Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK116074
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R18 DK122422
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

©David Scheinker, Angela Gu, Joshua Grossman, Andrew Ward, Oseas Ayerdi, Daniel Miller, Jeannine Leverenz, Korey Hood, Ming Yeh Lee, David M Maahs, Priya Prahalad. Originally published in JMIR Diabetes (https://diabetes.jmir.org), 06.06.2022.

Références

J Biomed Inform. 2018 Feb;78:134-143
pubmed: 29246790
Diabetologia. 2020 Sep;63(9):1671-1693
pubmed: 32556613
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Jul 09;11:360
pubmed: 32733375
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Aug;21(8):456-461
pubmed: 31180244
Front Big Data. 2019 Jan 08;1:7
pubmed: 33693323
JMIR Diabetes. 2021 Mar 16;6(1):e20270
pubmed: 33724201
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Jan 1;6(1):48-49
pubmed: 33026415
Diabetes Care. 2016 Apr;39(4):603-10
pubmed: 26681721
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 18;167(2):95-102
pubmed: 28605777
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Jan 1;6(1):40-48
pubmed: 33031534
Diabetes Care. 2014 Nov;37(11):3025-32
pubmed: 25078901
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Aug 1;102(8):2994-3001
pubmed: 28591776
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(1):e3-e4
pubmed: 31558548
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Aug;10(4):310-21
pubmed: 18828243
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):532-7
pubmed: 27018263
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 16;18(12):e323
pubmed: 27986644
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0137525
pubmed: 26367281
Diabetes Care. 2018 Sep;41(9):2026-2044
pubmed: 30093549
Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(1):e1-e2
pubmed: 31672703
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(1):14-16
pubmed: 33444165
Diabetes Care. 2017 Apr;40(4):538-545
pubmed: 28209654
Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Nov;19(7):1271-1275
pubmed: 29923262
Diabetes Care. 2016 Jul;39(7):1175-9
pubmed: 27330126
Diabetes Care. 2022 Jan 1;45(Suppl 1):S97-S112
pubmed: 34964871
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72
pubmed: 30657336
Acad Med. 2016 Oct;91(10):1439-1461
pubmed: 27489018
Diabetes Care. 2017 Dec;40(12):1631-1640
pubmed: 29162583
Pediatr Diabetes. 2021 Nov;22(7):982-991
pubmed: 34374183
J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11 Suppl 1:74-6
pubmed: 16036002

Auteurs

David Scheinker (D)

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Angela Gu (A)

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.

Joshua Grossman (J)

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.

Andrew Ward (A)

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.

Oseas Ayerdi (O)

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.

Daniel Miller (D)

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University School of Engineering, Stanford, CA, United States.

Jeannine Leverenz (J)

Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Korey Hood (K)

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Ming Yeh Lee (MY)

Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

David M Maahs (DM)

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Priya Prahalad (P)

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Classifications MeSH