Huidi Tchero1,2, Pauline Kangambega3, Christine Briatte4, Solenne Brunet-Houdard2, Gerald-Reparate Retali5, Emmanuel Rusch2,6. 1. 1 Department of Trauma and Orthopedics Surgery and Wound Healing Unit, Saint Martin, Guadeloupe, France. 2. 2 CHU de Tours-SIMEES-Medico-Economic Evaluation Unit, Tours Area, France. 3. 3 Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, CHRU de Pointe-A-Pitre, Pointe-A-Pitre, Guadeloupe, France. 4. 4 Regional Health Agency Guadeloupe, Saint-Martin et Saint-Barthélemy, Guadeloupe, France. 5. 5 Department of Health Economics, Institut Mines-Télécom, Paris, France. 6. 6 Department of Medical Information and Public Health, University Hospital, Tours, France.
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine is instrumental in improving diabetes patient care, as well as providing significant cost benefits. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of telemedicine intervention with usual care in diabetes patients. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting a change in HbA1c after usual care and telemedicine intervention were retrieved from electronic databases. Results: Data on 6,170 participants (mean age 13.3 to 71.0 years), with 3,128 randomized to usual care and 3,042 to telemedicine intervention, were retrieved from 42 RCTs. Eight studies used teleconsultation, while 34 used telemonitoring (device based). Nine studies enrolled both type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients, 21 focused on type 2 diabetes patients, and 12 on type 1 diabetes patients. The mean reduction in HbA1c was significantly higher in the telemedicine groups (Hedges' g = -0.37, p < 0.001). Type 2 diabetes patients experienced a higher reduction in HbA1c compared to type 1 diabetes patients (Hedges' g = -0.48, p < 0.001 vs. -0.26, p < 0.05; Q = 1935.75, p < 0.0001). Older patients (41-50 years, Hedges' g = -1.82, p < 0.001; >50 years, Hedges' g = -1.05, p < 0.001) benefited more than their younger counterparts (Hedges' g = -0.84, p = 0.07). Telemedicine programs lasting >6 months produced a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c levels (Hedges' g = -2.24 vs. -0.66, p < 0.001). Conclusion:Telemedicine interventions are more effective than usual care in managing diabetes, especially type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, older patients and a longer duration of intervention provide superior results.
RCT Entities:
Background: Telemedicine is instrumental in improving diabetespatient care, as well as providing significant cost benefits. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of telemedicine intervention with usual care in diabetespatients. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting a change in HbA1c after usual care and telemedicine intervention were retrieved from electronic databases. Results: Data on 6,170 participants (mean age 13.3 to 71.0 years), with 3,128 randomized to usual care and 3,042 to telemedicine intervention, were retrieved from 42 RCTs. Eight studies used teleconsultation, while 34 used telemonitoring (device based). Nine studies enrolled both type 1 and type 2 diabetespatients, 21 focused on type 2 diabetespatients, and 12 on type 1 diabetespatients. The mean reduction in HbA1c was significantly higher in the telemedicine groups (Hedges' g = -0.37, p < 0.001). Type 2 diabetespatients experienced a higher reduction in HbA1c compared to type 1 diabetespatients (Hedges' g = -0.48, p < 0.001 vs. -0.26, p < 0.05; Q = 1935.75, p < 0.0001). Older patients (41-50 years, Hedges' g = -1.82, p < 0.001; >50 years, Hedges' g = -1.05, p < 0.001) benefited more than their younger counterparts (Hedges' g = -0.84, p = 0.07). Telemedicine programs lasting >6 months produced a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c levels (Hedges' g = -2.24 vs. -0.66, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Telemedicine interventions are more effective than usual care in managing diabetes, especially type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, older patients and a longer duration of intervention provide superior results.
Authors: William H Polonsky; Jennifer E Layne; Christopher G Parkin; Coco M Kusiak; Nathan A Barleen; David P Miller; Howard Zisser; Ronald F Dixon Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2020-10
Authors: Richard I G Holt; J Hans DeVries; Amy Hess-Fischl; Irl B Hirsch; M Sue Kirkman; Tomasz Klupa; Barbara Ludwig; Kirsten Nørgaard; Jeremy Pettus; Eric Renard; Jay S Skyler; Frank J Snoek; Ruth S Weinstock; Anne L Peters Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Deborah A Greenwood; Michelle L Litchman; Diana Isaacs; Julia E Blanchette; Jane K Dickinson; Allyson Hughes; Vanessa D Colicchio; Jiancheng Ye; Kirsten Yehl; Andrew Todd; Malinda M Peeples Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-08-11
Authors: Morgan Hampton Randall; Zachary Merle Haulsee; Jingwen Zhang; Justin Marsden; William Patrick Moran; Elizabeth Barnhardt Kirkland Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Moshe Phillip; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; Thomas Danne; Satish K Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Boris P Kovatchev; Lori M Laffel; Viswanathan Mohan; Christopher G Parkin; Tadej Battelino Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Elizabeth Kirkland; Samuel O Schumann; Andrew Schreiner; Marc Heincelman; Jingwen Zhang; Justin Marsden; Patrick Mauldin; William P Moran Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 5.033