Diabetes care · 2018
The Effect of a Smartphone-Based, Patient-Centered Diabetes Care System in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial for 24 Weeks.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Eun Ky, Kwak Soo Heon, Jung Hye Seung, Koo Bo Kyung, Moon Min Kyong, Lim Soo, Jang Hak Chul, Park Kyong Soo, Cho Young Min
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy of a smartphone-based, patient-centered diabetes care system (mDiabetes) for type 2 diabetes that contains comprehensive modules for glucose monitoring, diet, physical activity, and a clinical decision support system.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with adult patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The patients were randomly assigned to the mDiabetes group or the paper logbook (pLogbook) group. The primary end point was the difference of the change in HbA1c from baseline between the two groups.
RESULTS: HbA1c reduction from baseline was greater in the mDiabetes group (-0.40 ± 0.09%, n = 90) than in the pLogbook group (-0.06 ± 0.10%, n = 82). The difference of adjusted mean changes was 0.35% (95% CI 0.14-0.55, P = 0.001). The proportion of patients whose HbA1c fell below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) was 41.1% for the mDiabetes group and 20.7% for the pLogbook group (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.24-3.25, P = 0.003). The percentage of patients who attained HbA1c levels below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycemia was 31.1% in the mDiabetes group and 17.1% in the pLogbook group (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.21, P = 0.024). There was no difference in the event numbers of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the mDiabetes for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels, with tolerable safety profiles.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a 24-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with adult patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The patients were randomly assigned to the mDiabetes group or the paper logbook (pLogbook) group. The primary end point was the difference of the change in HbA1c from baseline between the two groups.
RESULTS: HbA1c reduction from baseline was greater in the mDiabetes group (-0.40 ± 0.09%, n = 90) than in the pLogbook group (-0.06 ± 0.10%, n = 82). The difference of adjusted mean changes was 0.35% (95% CI 0.14-0.55, P = 0.001). The proportion of patients whose HbA1c fell below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) was 41.1% for the mDiabetes group and 20.7% for the pLogbook group (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.24-3.25, P = 0.003). The percentage of patients who attained HbA1c levels below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycemia was 31.1% in the mDiabetes group and 17.1% in the pLogbook group (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.21, P = 0.024). There was no difference in the event numbers of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the mDiabetes for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels, with tolerable safety profiles.