Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2024
Telemedicine maintains good glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes but is not time saving for healthcare professionals: KITES randomized study.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Plachy Lukas, Neuman Vit, Velichova Katerina, Slavenko Matvei G, Santova Alzbeta, Anne Amaratunga Shenali, Obermannova Barbora, Kolouskova Stanislava, Pruhova Stepanka, Sumnik Zdenek, Petruzelkova Lenka
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate glucose control non-inferiority and time benefits of telemedicine follow-up in children with type 1 diabetes (CwD).
METHODS: In a single-center 9-month-long randomized controlled study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05484427), 50 children were randomized to either telemedicine group (TG) followed-up distantly by e-mail, or to face-to-face group (FFG) attending standard personal visits. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of HbA1c at final visit (level of non-inferiority was set at 5 mmol/mol). The secondary endpoints were subcutaneous glucose monitoring parameters and time consumption from both study subjects' and the physicians' point of view.
RESULTS: Non-inferiority of HbA1c in the TG was proven (mean HbA1C 45.8 ± 7.3 [TG] vs. 50.0 ± 12.6 [FFG] mmol/mol, 6.3 vs. 6.7 % DCCT, p = 0.17; between groups HbA1C difference 95 % CI -10.2 to 1.9 mmol/mol). Telemedicine saved time for participants (mean visit duration [MVD] 50 [TG] vs. 247 min [FFG], p < 0.001). There were no other differences between groups neither in CGM parameters nor physician's time consumption (MVD 19 [TG] vs. 20 min [FFG], p = 0.58).
CONCLUSIONS: Nine-month telemedicine follow-up of the children with well-controlled T1D is not inferior to standard face-to-face visits. Telemedicine visits saved time for the participants but not for their diabetologists.
METHODS: In a single-center 9-month-long randomized controlled study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05484427), 50 children were randomized to either telemedicine group (TG) followed-up distantly by e-mail, or to face-to-face group (FFG) attending standard personal visits. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of HbA1c at final visit (level of non-inferiority was set at 5 mmol/mol). The secondary endpoints were subcutaneous glucose monitoring parameters and time consumption from both study subjects' and the physicians' point of view.
RESULTS: Non-inferiority of HbA1c in the TG was proven (mean HbA1C 45.8 ± 7.3 [TG] vs. 50.0 ± 12.6 [FFG] mmol/mol, 6.3 vs. 6.7 % DCCT, p = 0.17; between groups HbA1C difference 95 % CI -10.2 to 1.9 mmol/mol). Telemedicine saved time for participants (mean visit duration [MVD] 50 [TG] vs. 247 min [FFG], p < 0.001). There were no other differences between groups neither in CGM parameters nor physician's time consumption (MVD 19 [TG] vs. 20 min [FFG], p = 0.58).
CONCLUSIONS: Nine-month telemedicine follow-up of the children with well-controlled T1D is not inferior to standard face-to-face visits. Telemedicine visits saved time for the participants but not for their diabetologists.