Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

Randomized Study to Evaluate the Impact of Telemedicine Care in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes With Multiple Doses of Insulin and Suboptimal HbA1c in Andalusia (Spain): PLATEDIAN Study

  1. Maria S. Ruiz de Adana1,2,3,
  2. Maria Rosa Alhambra-Expósito4,5,
  3. Araceli Muñoz-Garach2,6,
  4. Inmaculada Gonzalez-Molero1,2,3,
  5. Natalia Colomo1,2,3⇑,
  6. Isabel Torres-Barea7,
  7. Manuel Aguilar-Diosdado8,9,
  8. Florentino Carral10,
  9. Manuel Serrano11,
  10. Maria A. Martínez-Brocca12,13,
  11. Ana Duran14 and
  12. Rafael Palomares4,5, on behalf of the Diabetes Group of SAEDYN (Andalusian Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition)*
  1. 1Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
  2. 2Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Málaga, Spain
  3. 3Ciber de Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabólicas (CIBERDEM), Madrid, Spain
  4. 4Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
  5. 5Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain
  6. 6Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain
  7. 7Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario de Jerez, Jerez, Cádiz, Spain
  8. 8Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain
  9. 9Biomedical Institute of Research of Cadiz (INIBICA), Cadiz, Spain
  10. 10Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Puerto Real, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain
  11. 11Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Jaén, Spain
  12. 12Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
  13. 13Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas/Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
  14. 14Medical Department, Sanofi Spain, Barcelona, Spain
  1. Corresponding author: Natalia Colomo, nataliacolomo{at}gmail.com
Diabetes Care 2020 Feb; 43(2): 337-342. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-0739
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of a telemedicine visit using the platform Diabetic compared with a face-to-face visit on clinical outcomes, patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physicians’ satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS PLATEDIAN (Telemedicine on Metabolic Control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Andalusian Patients) (NCT03332472) was a multicenter, randomized, 6-month follow-up, open-label, parallel-group controlled study performed in patients with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control (HbA1c <8% [<64 mmol/mol]), treated with multiple daily injections. A total of 388 patients were assessed for eligibility; 379 of them were randomized 1:1 to three face-to-face visits (control cohort [CC]) (n = 167) or the replacement of an intermediate face-to-face visit by a telemedicine visit using Diabetic (intervention cohort [IC]) (n = 163). The primary efficacy end point was the mean change of HbA1c levels from baseline to month 6. Other efficacy and safety end points were mean blood glucose, glucose variability, episodes of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, patient-reported outcomes, and physicians’ satisfaction.

RESULTS At month 6, the mean change in HbA1c levels was −0.04 ± 0.5% (−0.5 ± 5.8 mmol/mol) in the CC and 0.01 ± 0.6% (0.1 ± 6.0 mmol/mol) in the IC (P = 0.4941). The number of patients who achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was 73 and 78 in the CC and IC, respectively. Significant differences were not found regarding safety end points at 6 months. Changes in HRQoL between the first visit and final visit did not differ between cohorts, and, regarding fear of hypoglycemia (FH-15 score ≥28), statistically significant differences observed at baseline remained unchanged at 6 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS The use of telemedicine in patients with type 1 diabetes with HbA1c <8% (<64 mmol/mol) provides similar efficacy and safety outcomes as face-to-face visits.

Introduction

Diabetes is a complex chronic disease that requires continuous medical care with multifactorial risk reduction strategies beyond glycemic control (1). It is associated with high comorbidity, disability, and premature death (1,2). In Spain, the management of diabetes entails a significant burden on the health care system, mainly associated with the use of resources (2).

Type 1 diabetes management poses a challenge for health care providers (3). Strict glycemic control prevents acute complications and reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and microvascular complications (4,5). Metabolic control is achieved by monitoring glucose levels, following dietary recommendations, and evaluating the correct dose of insulin for administering (6). Poor metabolic control is associated with short-term complications such as hypoglycemia, poor adherence to treatment regimens, and noncompliance with scheduled visits to the doctor (3,7).

Telemedicine is defined as the delivery of health care services using information and communication technologies with the aim of diagnosing, treating, and preventing diseases and injuries (8). Telemedicine has been shown to be a valuable tool to manage chronic conditions such as hypertension (9) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10). Several authors have suggested that in diabetes, telemedicine may be helpful to facilitate self-management, overcome the complex educational requirements, reduce costs, improve patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and obtain better outcomes (7,11–13). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials studying the use of telemedicine in the management of diabetes showed nonsignificant or a slightly significant decrease in HbA1c (13–15). However, telemedicine did not affect patients’ HRQoL, risk of hypoglycemia, or mortality in the short-term (13).

In the Spanish health care system, medical follow-up and ongoing intensive self-care for patients with type 1 diabetes are performed by endocrinologists in specialist care centers. Since in some regions of Spain not all care centers have an endocrinologist, telemedicine can play a key role in facilitating patients’ follow-up. Telemedicine has emerged as a tool that can help optimize or facilitate the management of patients with type 1 diabetes living in rural areas or in places far from specialty care centers (16). Furthermore, telemedicine has been associated with time savings, cost savings, high appointment adherence rates, and high patient satisfaction (16). Earlier experiences of telemedicine in type 1 diabetes management suggested that its utilization is less costly and more efficient than face-to-face visits (17). In prior studies, monitoring glucose records and providing insulin dose adjustments using telemedicine systems proved effective in reducing HbA1c in patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥8% [≥64 mmol/mol]) (3,6,7). A study conducted in rural pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes reported that telemedicine was not inferior to face-to-face care in controlling HbA1c. Moreover, it showed that absenteeism from school and work by patients and caregivers decreased and that adherence to appointments was higher (18).

Although there is evidence of the clinical benefits of telemedicine in patients with type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control, we have not found any randomized clinical trial assessing its impact in patients with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c <8% (<64 mmol/mol). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the impact of the use of a telemedicine platform (Diabetic) for 6 months on patients with type 1 diabetes with acceptable metabolic control and treated with multiple daily injections, on clinical outcomes, patients’ HRQoL, and physicians’ satisfaction.

Research Design and Methods

Study Design and Participants

We performed a randomized, 6-month follow-up, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group controlled study (PLATEDIAN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03332472) involving the diabetes units of 10 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain).

All patients who attended their routine checkups in the diabetes units of participating hospitals from September 2014 to June 2016, and who met the inclusion criteria, were asked to participate in the study.

All participants received adequate information on the study and provided their written consent before the start of any procedures. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga. The study was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonization Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (19) and the Declaration of Helsinki (20).

Patients were included if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: 18–65 years of age, >2 years since type 1 diabetes diagnosis, HbA1c levels <8% (<64 mmol/mol), multiple daily injection therapy with a basal-bolus regimen, resident in Andalusia, and patients who had signed the written consent form. Exclusion criteria included the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; patients with chronic kidney disease, liver disease, thyroid disease (except in the case of adequately treated and controlled hypothyroidism), type 2 diabetes, or severe psychological disorders; current participation in other clinical studies; and the digital gap (social inequality in the access and use of information technologies).

Randomization was performed using free, open source software, which generated a random number list and allocated the patients to each care delivery strategy. At the first visit (V1), eligible patients were randomized 1:1 by the investigator to either the intervention cohort (IC) or the control cohort (CC).

The research team at each participant hospital was composed of an endocrinologist and a diabetes specialist nurse. Endocrinologists and diabetes-specialized nurses from participating diabetes units were offered participation in the study.

Procedures/Interventions

For all participants, study follow-up was 6 months (24 weeks) and included one visit every 3 months. V1 and the final visit (V3) were face-to-face visits for both cohorts. The second visit (V2) was a face-to-face visit for the CC and a telemedicine visit for the IC (Supplementary Fig. 1). At the face-to-face visits, investigators collected all the study variables in a paper case report form (CRF). All patients used the same glucometer (BG-Star) to record glucose measurements.

During the study, participants were cared for only by the members of the site research team, regardless of the group to which they were assigned (CC or IC). So, they may be followed by an endocrinologist who was not the provider they normally saw.

CC

Patients in CC were followed up via face-to-face visits every 3 months (V1, V2, and V3). Study variables were collected, and insulin dose adjustments were made during each visit.

IC

Patients in IC were followed up via face-to-face visits at V1 and V3, whereas V2 was performed through a telemedicine visit at 3 months.

At V1, IC patients were trained by the research team nurse (who had expertise in the Diabetic platform) and received the necessary material to download glucometer data at home. Additionally, during the following 2 weeks, patients were asked to confirm that they could access the platform as well as contact researchers to resolve queries or report possible faults.

During the study (24 weeks), patients made free use of the platform, which allowed them to download their daily self-monitored blood glucose for charts and statistics. However, at V2 (3 months), the downloading of data was mandatory for these patients, and the research team accessed the Diabetic platform to review it and to adjust the insulin dose. The research team could contact patients via e-mail and mobile phone messages. No other telemedicine visits were performed at a time other than V2.

Diabetic

Diabetic is an Internet-based telemedicine system specifically designed for monitoring people with diabetes and helping patients and clinicians make decisions on disease management. The system has two versions of access: a web-based version, which allows patients access from their personal computer, and the mobile version, which allows access from their smartphones.

Patients can download their self-monitored blood glucose data stored in a glucometer (BG-Star or other glucometers). In the case of the BG-Star, data are downloaded through the web-based version of the platform, connecting the glucometer to the PC with a cable. Moreover, patients can include information regarding the insulin doses administered, the carbohydrates consumed, physical activity, and other health data.

The Diabetic platform generates charts, graphs, and statistics with data from capillary glucose measurements and the rest of the information collected on the platform, which is available for both patients and the research team. Patients can use the charts and graphs available on the platform to make decisions about their diabetes care. Physicians can evaluate the data available on the platform and obtain metabolic control statistics or treatment reports to manage the patients.

The Diabetic platform has been assessed in previous studies on telemedicine with successful outcomes (21).

Outcome Measures

The primary efficacy end point of the study was the mean change of HbA1c levels from V1 to V3. Secondary efficacy end points included the change of mean blood glucose and glucose variability (SD, coefficient of glucose variation [CV = (SD/mean) × 100], and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions).

Other efficacy end points included patient-reported outcomes (PROs), assessed as the change in HRQoL scores and the change in the proportion of patients with a fear of hypoglycemia and with emotional distress.

HRQoL was determined using the Diabetes Quality of Life (DQoL) questionnaire that consists of 46 items divided into four subscale scores for 1) satisfaction with treatment, 2) impact of treatment, 3) worry about the future effects of diabetes, and 4) worry about social/vocational issues (22). Due to their closer relationship with a treatment change, only the subscales related to satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment were assessed. Each subscale ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL.

To assess the emotional distress linked directly to diabetes, the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) questionnaire was used (23). The DDS consists of 17 items, which include four subscales: emotional burden, physician-related distress, regimen-related distress, and interpersonal distress. The total score ranges from 1 to 6, with higher values indicating greater distress (≥3 reflects clinically meaningful distress levels).

The Fear of Hypoglycemia (FH-15) questionnaire assesses the fear of hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 1 diabetes (24). The test consists of 15 items using a 5-point Likert scale, and the sum of the responses indicates the overall score. In order to identify individuals with a fear of hypoglycemia who might benefit from psychological intervention, consideration was given to those who obtained a score of ≥28.

Internal reliability for DQoL, DDS, and FH-15 was previously established, and the Cronbach α coefficient for each questionnaire is available in Supplementary Table 1.

Secondary safety end points included the change in the number of events between V1 and V3 related to 1) the frequency of severe hypoglycemia (requiring third-party assistance) in the 6 months prior to the visit, 2) ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis events, 3) hospital admission due to decompensated glycemia, 4) the frequency of mild hypoglycemia (symptomatic nonsevere hypoglycemia) in the 2 weeks prior to the visit, and 5) hyperglycemia >250 mg/dL in the 2 weeks prior to the visit.

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed to assess physicians’ satisfaction with the use of the Diabetic platform (Supplementary Table 2). It included a global satisfaction scale with scores between 1 and 10. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with the platform.

Data Collection

A CRF was developed to collect data at each visit. At V1, written consent was provided, eligibility criteria were verified, and patients were randomized and assigned to one of the two cohorts. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and efficacy and safety outcomes were reported. At V2, efficacy (except PROs) and safety outcomes and the use of resources (from V1 to V2) were collected on the CRF through the telemedicine visit (IC) or through the face-to-face visit (CC). At V3, clinical characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes, and the use of resources (from V2 to V3) were collected on the CRF. At V3, physicians responsible for the IC patients completed a specific questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the Diabetic platform.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated by assuming no inferiority criteria between cohorts (IC vs. CC) in the primary outcome, with 80% statistical power to detect intergroup differences of 0.4% (1.3% SD) (25) in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to the last visit after the 6-month follow-up, as reported previously. Given these assumptions, 167 patients per cohort were required. Taking into account a dropout rate of 15%, 192 patients were enrolled in each cohort.

Statistical analysis was based on all valid data of randomized patients who completed V1 and V3, according to per protocol analysis. In the descriptive analysis, absolute and relative frequencies were calculated to describe qualitative variables (sociodemographic characteristics and overall clinical characteristics). Measures of centrality and dispersion (mean, SD, minimum, maximum, and quartiles) were calculated to describe the quantitative variables. The comparison of quantitative variables between cohorts was performed using the Student t test or the Mann-Whitney U test, depending on the results of the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The χ2 test was used to compare qualitative variables between cohorts.

Statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 14 (26).

Results

A total of 388 adult patients with type 1 diabetes participated in the study, of whom 330 completed V1 and V3 and were therefore included in the analysis. Participants were randomized into the CC (n = 167) and the IC (n = 163) (Supplementary Fig. 1).

The baseline sociodemographic and overall clinical characteristics of the two cohorts are shown in Table 1. No statistical differences between cohorts were observed regarding sociodemographic and clinical variables at baseline.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Participant characteristics at baseline

No statistically significant differences were detected in relation to baseline characteristics (age, sex, HbA1c, and % of patients in the intervention group) between the patients who withdrew from the study and the patients included in the analysis (Supplementary Table 2). The reasons for loss to follow-up are displayed in a CONSORT flow diagram (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Impact of Telemedicine on Efficacy and Safety End Points

Mean (±SD) HbA1c remained similar to baseline after 6 months: 7.0 ± 0.7% (53.1 ± 8.1 mmol/mol) and 7.0 ± 0.8% (53.3 ± 8.3 mmol/mol) in the CC and IC, respectively. Thus, at the end of the study, the mean change in HbA1c levels was similar in both cohorts: −0.04 ± 0.5% (−0.5 ± 5.8 mmol/mol) vs. 0.01 ± 0.6% (0.1 ± 6.0 mmol/mol) (P = 0.4941), respectively. The number of patients who achieved HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) was 73 (43.71%) and 78 (47.75%) in the CC and IC, respectively.

According to the glycemic variability, differences between SD, coefficient of variation, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions values in the two cohorts were not significant (P = 0.757, P = 0.746, and P = 0.436, respectively).

At baseline, the number of weekly mild hypoglycemia episodes was significantly higher in the CC. The evaluation of the change from baseline of the number of episodes showed an increase of 0.34 in the IC and a decrease of 0.42 in the CC (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the number of hypoglycemias between the cohorts at 6 months. There were no significant differences in the other safety end points (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Outcomes concerning safety variables

Impact of Telemedicine on PROs

Table 3 shows the impact of telemedicine on PROs. Although there were significant differences in DQoL impact and satisfaction of treatment subscales between cohorts at the baseline, the assessment of change in HRQoL at V1–V3, using DQoL treatment subscales, did not differ between cohorts. Statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the proportion of patients with a fear of hypoglycemia (FH-15 ≥28) between the CC and IC at baseline and 6 months (V1: CC 54.6% vs. IC 40.8%, P < 0.05; V3: CC 58.7% vs. IC 40.2%, P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were detected when comparing the proportion of patients with distress due to type 1 diabetes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

PROs for both cohorts

Physician Satisfaction

Physicians’ satisfaction with the use of the Diabetic platform was moderate to high, with a mean score of 6.28 (on a scale of 0–10). More than 50% of the physicians were very or quite satisfied with metabolic control outcomes (54%), data accuracy (54.6%), data utility (52.7%), and platform flexibility (50.9%). Items with a lower satisfaction score were handling (43% very or quite satisfied), the speed of the platform (42.9%), and the improvement of adherence (43%).

Conclusions

Our study reveals that the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes obtained using telemedicine care for the management of type 1 diabetes and suboptimal HbA1c (<8%) are similar to those obtained through face-to-face visits. Thus, the glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes with HbA1c <8% (<64 mmol/mol) is similar in both cohorts at the end of the study. These results are in line with previous studies conducted in noncontrolled patients with type 1 diabetes (HbA1c ≥8% or ≥64 mmol/mol), which demonstrated improving HbA1c without significant differences between the CC and the IC (15,27). Regarding adverse events, such as mild and severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemic episodes, ketoacidosis, and the need for hospital admission, we did not find any differences between the two cohorts at 6 months. This supports previous results that reported that telemedicine did not reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (13,15).

Therefore, one of the main contributions of this study is to show that some face-to-face visits may be replaced by telemedicine visits on the routine clinical care of patients with type 1 diabetes and acceptable metabolic control. One of the most important benefits of telemedicine is its ability to improve access to health care. Telemedicine offers an alternative to patients that live in geographically or socioeconomically isolated communities, far from medical facilities, or those with limited mobility. Previous studies had also demonstrated the effectiveness of telemedicine in delivering diabetes care to patients in rural areas (15,16,28). The reduction of face-to-face visits is especially important in cases with low health care resources and difficulties getting access to the endocrinology medical center, as in some areas of Andalusia. On the other hand, telemedicine care involves infrastructure requirements, technological skills, and the engagement of health care professional and patients. This fact could condition the incorporation of telemedicine into routine clinical practice in the care of patients with type 1 diabetes.

The fear of hypoglycemia is associated with a reduction in insulin use, increased energy intake (15), and poor metabolic control. Despite the randomization, there is a higher percentage of patients with a fear of hypoglycemia in the CC, both at baseline and at 6 months. Since there is no significant change in the fear of hypoglycemia in either cohort, it may be concluded that the fear of hypoglycemia does not respond to the care delivery strategy but likely to particular psychological strategies. Moreover, the HRQoL subscales evaluated did not change during the 6-month follow-up, suggesting that the telemedicine intervention does not impair the patients’ lifestyle.

A few clinical studies have assessed health care provider satisfaction with telemedicine systems in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes. Physicians’ satisfaction could be a key factor for implementing and improving this telemedicine system. Despite the positive overall satisfaction score assigned by the physicians, some aspects related to treatment adherence and related to the digital platform characteristics, such as its handling and its speed, should be refined.

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that focuses on patients with type 1 diabetes and acceptable metabolic control, using a large sample size and a follow-up period of 6 months. One of the main strengths of this study is its randomized and multicentric design. This design allows the inclusion of a larger number of subjects from different locations within the region, contributing to the generalization of the results. Moreover, the assessment of psychosocial factors and PROs provides information concerning the impact of the disease on patients’ lives that may complement and support other objective findings.

Nevertheless, this study has some limitations. First, the duration of type 1 diabetes was not collected at baseline. This may be one of the main limitations of the study, since the duration of the disease may have an impact on its clinical management. Second, data of mild hypoglycemia were collected only 2 weeks prior to baseline and V3, thus limiting the generalization of the results. Third, glucose variability was assessed using capillary blood glucose measurements instead of continuous glucose monitoring. However, a study demonstrated that glycemic variability parameters calculated with four capillary blood glucose measurements in children with type 1 diabetes had a good correlation with those estimated with data from continuous glucose monitoring (29). Fourth, the internal reliability of the physicians’ satisfaction questionnaire used in the study has not been psychometrically tested. The questionnaire was specifically designed for this study by Sanofi to assess physicians’ satisfaction with the use of the Diabetic platform and has not been used or assessed in previous studies. Finally, since diabetes is a long-term condition requiring continuity of care, health interventions should be assessed for a long period of time. Our findings suggest a similar impact on clinical outcomes between groups; however, additional studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these results and shed light on this topic.

In conclusion, the results of the study show that, compared with routine care, the use of telemedicine has a similar impact on glycemic control, episodes of acute diabetes-related complications, and quality of life. Therefore, the study allows us to prove the advantages of this innovative care option in the usual follow-up of this specific profile of people with type 1 diabetes and shows that telemedicine may improve patient access to health care and diabetes management in some geographic areas.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Outcomes’10 for their medical writing and editorial support.

Funding. This study was sponsored by the Andalusian Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition (SAEDYN). A.M.-G. was the recipient of a postdoctoral grant (Juan Rodes JR 17/00023) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Duality of Interest. Sanofi also funded the study, and Sanofi funded the medical writing and editorial support. A.D. works at Sanofi. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. M.S.R.d.A., M.R.A.-E., A.M.-G., I.G.-M., N.C., I.T.-B., M.A.-D., F.C., M.S., M.A.M.-B., and R.P. collected data. M.S.R.d.A., M.R.A.-E., A.M.-G., I.G.-M., N.C., I.T.-B., M.A.-D., F.C., M.S., M.A.M.-B., and R.P. interpreted data. M.S.R.d.A. and N.C. drafted the manuscript. M.S.R.d.A., N.C., M.A.-D., F.C., M.A.M.-B., A.D., and R.P. designed the study. M.S.R.d.A., M.R.A.-E., A.M.-G., I.G.-M., N.C., I.T.-B., M.A.-D., F.C., M.S., M.A.M.-B., A.D., and R.P. approved the final version of the manuscript. N.C. was responsible for submitting for publication. M.S.R.d.A. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • ↵Clinical trial reg. no. NCT03332472, clinicaltrials.gov

  • This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc19-0739/-/DC1.

  • * A complete list of the Diabetes Group of SAEDYN (Andalusian Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition) can be found in the Supplementary Data.

  • Received April 12, 2019.
  • Accepted November 16, 2019.
  • © 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41:S1–S159
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. García-Soidán FJ,
    2. Villoro R,
    3. Merino M,
    4. Hidalgo-Vega Á,
    5. Hernando-Martín T,
    6. González-Martín-Moro B
    . Health status, quality of life, and use of healthcare resources by patients with diabetes mellitus in Spain. Semergen 2017;43:416–424 [in French]
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Di Bartolo P,
    2. Nicolucci A,
    3. Cherubini V,
    4. Iafusco D,
    5. Scardapane M,
    6. Rossi MC
    . Young patients with type 1 diabetes poorly controlled and poorly compliant with self-monitoring of blood glucose: can technology help? Results of the i-NewTrend randomized clinical trial. Acta Diabetol 2017;54:393–402
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2017. Diabetes Care 2017;40:S1–S135
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Nathan DM,
    2. Cleary PA,
    3. Backlund JY, et al.; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group
    . Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643–2653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Ryan EA,
    2. Holland J,
    3. Stroulia E, et al
    . Improved A1C levels in type 1 diabetes with smartphone app use. Can J Diabetes 2017;41:33–40
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Charpentier G,
    2. Benhamou PY,
    3. Dardari D, et al.; TeleDiab Study Group
    . The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 Study). Diabetes Care 2011;34:533–539
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009. Vol. 2. Geneva, World Health Org., 2010
  9. ↵
    1. Verberk WJ,
    2. Kessels AG,
    3. Thien T
    . Telecare is a valuable tool for hypertension management, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Press Monit 2011;16:149–155
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Mclean S,
    2. Nurmatov U,
    3. Jly L,
    4. Pagliari C,
    5. Car J,
    6. Sheikh A
    . Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;6:CD007718
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Klonoff DC
    . Improved outcomes from diabetes monitoring: the benefits of better adherence, therapy adjustments, patient education, and telemedicine support. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:486–490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rossi MC,
    2. Nicolucci A,
    3. Di Bartolo P, et al
    . Diabetes Interactive Diary: a new telemedicine system enabling flexible diet and insulin therapy while improving quality of life: an open-label, international, multicenter, randomized study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:109–115
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Faruque LI,
    2. Wiebe N,
    3. Ehteshami-Afshar A, et al.; Alberta Kidney Disease Network
    . Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ 2017;189:E341–E364
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tchero H,
    2. Kangambega P,
    3. Briatte C,
    4. Brunet-Houdard S,
    5. Retali GR,
    6. Rusch E
    . Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine in diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials. Telemed J E Health 2019;25:569–583
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Lee SWH,
    2. Ooi L,
    3. Lai YK
    . Telemedicine for the management of glycemic control and clinical outcomes of type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Front Pharmacol 2017;8:330
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Xu T,
    2. Pujara S,
    3. Sutton S,
    4. Rhee M
    . Telemedicine in the management of type 1 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:E13
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Esmatjes E,
    2. Jansà M,
    3. Roca D, et al.; Telemed-Diabetes Group
    . The efficiency of telemedicine to optimize metabolic sontrol in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: telemed study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014;16:435–441
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Wood CL,
    2. Clements SA,
    3. McFann K,
    4. Slover R,
    5. Thomas JF,
    6. Wadwa RP
    . Use of telemedicine to improve adherence to American Diabetes Association standards in pediatric type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18:7–14
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. European Medicines Agency
    . Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2), Vol. 6. London, European Medicines Agency, 2016, p. 1–70
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. World Medical Association General Assembly
    . Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [article online], 1964. Available from https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DoH-Jun1964.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2019
  19. ↵
    1. Carral F,
    2. Ayala Mdel C,
    3. Fernández JJ, et al
    . Web-based telemedicine system is useful for monitoring glucose control in pregnant women with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015;17:349–354
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Burroughs TE,
    2. Desikan R,
    3. Waterman BM,
    4. Gilin D,
    5. McGill J
    . Development and validation of the diabetes quality of life brief clinical inventory. Diabetes Spectr 2004;17:41–49
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Schmitt A,
    2. Reimer A,
    3. Kulzer B,
    4. Haak T,
    5. Ehrmann D,
    6. Hermanns N
    . How to assess diabetes distress: comparison of the Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS). Diabet Med 2016;33:835–843
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Anarte Ortiz MT,
    2. Caballero FF,
    3. Ruiz de Adana MS, et al
    . Development of a new fear of hypoglycemia scale: FH-15. Psychol Assess 2011;23:398–405
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ruiz de Adana MS,
    2. Colomo N,
    3. Rubio-Martin E
    . High inflammatory markers in subjects with type 1 diabetes and its relationship with diabetes-related complications and insulin treatment. Av Diabetol 2012;28:1–22
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. StataCorp
    . Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX, StataCorp LP, 2015
  25. ↵
    1. Sood A,
    2. Watts SA,
    3. Johnson JK,
    4. Hirth S,
    5. Aron DC
    . Telemedicine consultation for patients with diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 2018;24:385–391
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Zhai YK,
    2. Zhu WJ,
    3. Cai YL,
    4. Sun DX,
    5. Zhao J
    . Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014;93:e312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Choleau C,
    2. Aubert C,
    3. Cahané M,
    4. Reach G
    . High day-to-day glucose variability: a frequent phenomenon in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending summer camp. Diabetes Metab 2008;34:46–51
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (2)

In this Issue

February 2020, 43(2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Randomized Study to Evaluate the Impact of Telemedicine Care in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes With Multiple Doses of Insulin and Suboptimal HbA1c in Andalusia (Spain): PLATEDIAN Study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Randomized Study to Evaluate the Impact of Telemedicine Care in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes With Multiple Doses of Insulin and Suboptimal HbA1c in Andalusia (Spain): PLATEDIAN Study
Maria S. Ruiz de Adana, Maria Rosa Alhambra-Expósito, Araceli Muñoz-Garach, Inmaculada Gonzalez-Molero, Natalia Colomo, Isabel Torres-Barea, Manuel Aguilar-Diosdado, Florentino Carral, Manuel Serrano, Maria A. Martínez-Brocca, Ana Duran, Rafael Palomares
Diabetes Care Feb 2020, 43 (2) 337-342; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0739

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Randomized Study to Evaluate the Impact of Telemedicine Care in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes With Multiple Doses of Insulin and Suboptimal HbA1c in Andalusia (Spain): PLATEDIAN Study
Maria S. Ruiz de Adana, Maria Rosa Alhambra-Expósito, Araceli Muñoz-Garach, Inmaculada Gonzalez-Molero, Natalia Colomo, Isabel Torres-Barea, Manuel Aguilar-Diosdado, Florentino Carral, Manuel Serrano, Maria A. Martínez-Brocca, Ana Duran, Rafael Palomares
Diabetes Care Feb 2020, 43 (2) 337-342; DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0739
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Not Only Diabetes but Also Prediabetes Leads to Functional Decline and Disability in Older Adults
  • Specific Dimensions of Depression Have Different Associations With Cognitive Decline in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Novel Biochemical Markers of Glycemia to Predict Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Type 1 Diabetes
Show more Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.