Jun Yang Lee1, Carina Ka Yee Chan2,3, Siew Siang Chua4, Chirk Jenn Ng5, Thomas Paraidathathu4, Kenneth Kwing Chin Lee1, Shaun Wen Huey Lee6,7,8. 1. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia. 2. School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Edwards Road, Flora Hill, VIC, 3551, Australia. 3. Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia. 4. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Taylor's University Lakeside Campus, No. 1 Jalan Taylor's, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 5. Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 6. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia. shaun.lee@monash.edu. 7. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Taylor's University Lakeside Campus, No. 1 Jalan Taylor's, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. shaun.lee@monash.edu. 8. Asian Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Population, Implementation and Clinical Outcomes (PICO), Health and Well-being Cluster, Global Asia in the 21st Century (GA21) Platform, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia. shaun.lee@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Connected devices that allow people with diabetes to monitor their blood glucose levels remotely with data visualization have been shown to improve self-care behavior in diabetes management. However, their effectiveness and usability for a low-middle-income, racially diverse population are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effects of remote telemonitoring with team-based management on people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic 52-week cluster-randomized controlled study among 11 primary care government practices in Malaysia. PARTICIPANTS: People with type 2 diabetes aged 18 and above, who had hemoglobin A1c ≥ 7.5% but less than 11.0% within the past 3 months and resided in the state of Selangor. INTERVENTION: The intervention group received home gluco-telemonitors and transmitted glucose data to a care team who could adjust therapy accordingly. The team also facilitated self-management by supporting participants to improve medication adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyle and use of resources to reduce risk factors. Usual care group received routine healthcare service. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c at 24 weeks and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, lipid levels, health-related quality of life, and diabetes self-efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 240 participants were recruited in this study. The telemonitoring group reported larger improvements in glycemic control compared with control at the end of study (week 24, - 0.05%; 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.00%) and at follow-up (week 52, - 0.03%; - 0.07 to 0.02%, p = 0.226). Similarly, no differences in other secondary outcomes were observed, including the number of adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there is limited benefit of replacing telemedicine with the current practice of self-monitoring of blood glucose. Further innovative methods to improve patient engagement in diabetes care are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02466880.
BACKGROUND: Connected devices that allow people with diabetes to monitor their blood glucose levels remotely with data visualization have been shown to improve self-care behavior in diabetes management. However, their effectiveness and usability for a low-middle-income, racially diverse population are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effects of remote telemonitoring with team-based management on people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic 52-week cluster-randomized controlled study among 11 primary care government practices in Malaysia. PARTICIPANTS: People with type 2 diabetes aged 18 and above, who had hemoglobin A1c ≥ 7.5% but less than 11.0% within the past 3 months and resided in the state of Selangor. INTERVENTION: The intervention group received home gluco-telemonitors and transmitted glucose data to a care team who could adjust therapy accordingly. The team also facilitated self-management by supporting participants to improve medication adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyle and use of resources to reduce risk factors. Usual care group received routine healthcare service. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c at 24 weeks and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, lipid levels, health-related quality of life, and diabetes self-efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 240 participants were recruited in this study. The telemonitoring group reported larger improvements in glycemic control compared with control at the end of study (week 24, - 0.05%; 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.00%) and at follow-up (week 52, - 0.03%; - 0.07 to 0.02%, p = 0.226). Similarly, no differences in other secondary outcomes were observed, including the number of adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there is limited benefit of replacing telemedicine with the current practice of self-monitoring of blood glucose. Further innovative methods to improve patient engagement in diabetes care are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02466880.
Entities:
Keywords:
cluster-randomized; glucose; self-monitoring; telemonitoring; type 2 diabetes
Authors: Laura A Young; John B Buse; Mark A Weaver; Maihan B Vu; C Madeline Mitchell; Tamara Blakeney; Kimberlea Grimm; Jennifer Rees; Franklin Niblock; Katrina E Donahue Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Charlene C Quinn; Michelle D Shardell; Michael L Terrin; Erik A Barr; Shoshana H Ballew; Ann L Gruber-Baldini Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kelly A McConnell; Lyndsay K Krisher; Maureen Lenssen; Maya Bunik; Saskia Bunge Montes; Gretchen J Domek Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2017-03-29
Authors: Elizabeth B Kirkland; Justin Marsden; Jingwen Zhang; Samuel O Schumann; John Bian; Patrick Mauldin; William P Moran Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 2.567
Authors: Jun Yang Lee; Carina Ka Yee Chan; Siew Siang Chua; Thomas Paraidathathu; Kenneth Kwing-Chin Lee; Christina San San Tan; Nazrila Nasir; Shaun Wen Huey Lee Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jorge César Correia; Hafsa Meraj; Soo Huat Teoh; Ahmed Waqas; Maaz Ahmad; Luis Velez Lapão; Zoltan Pataky; Alain Golay Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Matthew J O'Brien; John J Stephen; Kristine L Norton; Thomas P Meehan; Deneen Vojta; Ronald T Ackermann Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.567
Authors: David Flood; Jessica Hane; Matthew Dunn; Sarah Jane Brown; Bradley H Wagenaar; Elizabeth A Rogers; Michele Heisler; Peter Rohloff; Vineet Chopra Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 11.613