Erin C Cobry1, Tyler Reznick-Lipina1, Laura Pyle1,2, Robert Slover1, John F Thomas3,4, Guy Todd Alonso1, Raj Paul Wadwa1. 1. Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 3. Department of General Academic Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
Background: Clinic-to-clinic telemedicine can increase visit frequency in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) living far from a diabetes specialty clinic, but the impact on adoption of diabetes technology is unclear. Materials and Methods: Pediatric patients with T1D in Colorado and surrounding states who received diabetes care using clinic-to-clinic telemedicine were enrolled. Medical records and surveys were reviewed to ascertain technology use, and data were compared to patients from the main clinic population. Results: Patients (N = 128, baseline mean age 12.4 ± 4.2 years, median T1D duration 3.3 years [IQR 1.4-7.7], mean A1c 8.9% ± 1.8%, 60% male, 75% non-Hispanic white, 77% private insurance) who utilized telemedicine were included. Technology use among telemedicine patients was not associated with gender, T1D duration, insurance, distance from the main clinic or rural designation but was associated with ethnicity and A1c. Compared to the main clinic cohort (N = 3636), continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use and pump/CGM combination use was lower among patients participating in clinic-to-clinic telemedicine (CGM: 29.7% vs. 56.0%, P < 0.001; CGM/pump combination: 27.3% vs. 40.3%, P = 0.004). Technology use was associated with lower A1c regardless of cohort. Conclusions: Compared to patients attending in-person clinic, pediatric T1D patients who use clinic-to-clinic telemedicine due to their distance from the main clinic, have lower CGM and combination CGM/pump use. For both telemedicine and main clinic patients, CGM and CGM/pump combination was associated with lower A1c. Additional research is needed to explore reasons for this discrepancy and find methods to improve CGM use in this population.
Background: Clinic-to-clinic telemedicine can increase visit frequency in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) living far from a diabetes specialty clinic, but the impact on adoption of diabetes technology is unclear. Materials and Methods: Pediatric patients with T1D in Colorado and surrounding states who received diabetes care using clinic-to-clinic telemedicine were enrolled. Medical records and surveys were reviewed to ascertain technology use, and data were compared to patients from the main clinic population. Results: Patients (N = 128, baseline mean age 12.4 ± 4.2 years, median T1D duration 3.3 years [IQR 1.4-7.7], mean A1c 8.9% ± 1.8%, 60% male, 75% non-Hispanic white, 77% private insurance) who utilized telemedicine were included. Technology use among telemedicine patients was not associated with gender, T1D duration, insurance, distance from the main clinic or rural designation but was associated with ethnicity and A1c. Compared to the main clinic cohort (N = 3636), continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use and pump/CGM combination use was lower among patients participating in clinic-to-clinic telemedicine (CGM: 29.7% vs. 56.0%, P < 0.001; CGM/pump combination: 27.3% vs. 40.3%, P = 0.004). Technology use was associated with lower A1c regardless of cohort. Conclusions: Compared to patients attending in-person clinic, pediatric T1D patients who use clinic-to-clinic telemedicine due to their distance from the main clinic, have lower CGM and combination CGM/pump use. For both telemedicine and main clinic patients, CGM and CGM/pump combination was associated with lower A1c. Additional research is needed to explore reasons for this discrepancy and find methods to improve CGM use in this population.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Kellee M Miller; Mark A Clements; Michael R Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane; Richard Bergenstal; Elizabeth Smith; Beth A Olson; Satish K Garg Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Mark W Reid; Subramanian Krishnan; Cari Berget; Cindy Cain; John Fred Thomas; Georgeanna J Klingensmith; Jennifer K Raymond Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Lori M Laffel; Lauren G Kanapka; Roy W Beck; Katherine Bergamo; Mark A Clements; Amy Criego; Daniel J DeSalvo; Robin Goland; Korey Hood; David Liljenquist; Laurel H Messer; Roshanak Monzavi; Thomas J Mouse; Priya Prahalad; Jennifer Sherr; Jill H Simmons; R Paul Wadwa; Ruth S Weinstock; Steven M Willi; Kellee M Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Molly L Tanenbaum; Sarah J Hanes; Kellee M Miller; Diana Naranjo; Rachel Bensen; Korey K Hood Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Robert A Vigersky; Kevin Velado; Alex Zhong; Pratik Agrawal; Toni L Cordero Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 6.118