Feasibility and Impact of Remote Glucose Monitoring Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes: Single-Center Pilot Study

Stephanie Crossen, Crystal Romero, Allison Reggiardo, Jimi Michel, Nicole Glaser, Stephanie Crossen, Crystal Romero, Allison Reggiardo, Jimi Michel, Nicole Glaser

Abstract

Background: Caregivers of children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) maintain close contact with providers for several weeks to facilitate rapid adjustments in insulin dosing regimens. Traditionally, patient glucose values are relayed by telephone for provider feedback, but digital health technology can now enable the remote sharing of glucose data via mobile apps.

Objective: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of remote glucose monitoring in a population of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed T1D and to explore whether remote monitoring alters habits for self-review of glucose data or perceived ease of provider contact in this population as compared to a nonrandomized control group.

Methods: Data were collected from families who chose to participate in remote monitoring (intervention group) as well as from patients receiving usual care (control group). The intervention group received Bluetooth-capable glucose meters and Apple iPod Touch devices. Patient-generated glucose data were passively relayed from the meter to the iPod Touch and then to both the electronic health record (EHR) and a third-party diabetes data platform, Tidepool. The principal investigator reviewed glucose data daily in the EHR and Tidepool and contacted the participants as needed for insulin dose adjustments during the time between hospital discharge and first clinic appointment. Families in the control group received usual care, which involved keeping written records of glucose values and contacting the diabetes team daily by telephone to relay data and receive treatment recommendations. A total of 40 families (20 for the intervention group and 20 for the control group) participated in the study. All families were surveyed at 1 month and 6 months regarding self-review of glucose data and ease of contacting the diabetes team.

Results: Patient-generated glucose data were remotely accessible for 100% of the participants via Tidepool and for 85% via the EHR. Survey data indicated that families in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to review their glucose data using mobile health apps after 1 month (P<.001), but by 6 months, this difference had disappeared. Perceived ease of contacting the clinical team for assistance was lower for the intervention group after 6 months (when receiving usual care) in comparison to during the intervention period (P=.48) and compared with a control group who did not have exposure to remote monitoring (P=.03).

Conclusions: Remote glucose monitoring is feasible among pediatric patients with newly diagnosed T1D and may be associated with the earlier adoption of mobile health apps for self-management. The use of broadscale remote monitoring for T1D in the future will depend on improved access to Bluetooth-enabled mobile devices for all patients, improved interoperability of mobile health apps to enable data transfer on Android as well as Apple devices, and new provider workflows to handle large-scale panel management based on patient-generated health data.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106440; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04106440.

Keywords: T1D; application; diabetes; mobile health; patient-generated data; pediatrics; remote monitoring; type 1 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Stephanie Crossen, Crystal Romero, Allison Reggiardo, Jimi Michel, Nicole Glaser. Originally published in JMIR Diabetes (https://diabetes.jmir.org), 17.01.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relay of glucose data via mobile health apps.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survey responses to “How do you review your child’s glucose levels (select all that apply)?” All P values >.05, except as shown.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Survey responses to “How easy is it to discuss your child’s glucose levels with his/her diabetes team between clinic visits (select one)?” All P values >.05, except as shown.

References

    1. Sherr JL, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, de Bock M, Forlenza G, Roman R, Hood KK, Maahs DM. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Diabetes technologies. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Oct 01;19 Suppl 27:302–325. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12731.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, Beck RW, Bissen J, Buckingham B, Deeb L, Dolin RH, Garg SK, Goland R, Hirsch IB, Klonoff DC, Kruger DF, Matfin G, Mazze RS, Olson BA, Parkin C, Peters A, Powers MA, Rodriguez H, Southerland P, Strock ES, Tamborlane W, Wesley DM. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Mar;15(3):198–211. doi: 10.1089/dia.2013.0051.
    1. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, Clements MA, Rickels MR, DiMeglio LA, Maahs DM, Tamborlane WV, Bergenstal R, Smith E, Olson BA, Garg SK. State of Type 1 Diabetes Management and Outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66–72. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0384.
    1. Mobile Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. [2021-08-17].
    1. 2020 Consumer Guide: Meters. Diabetes Forecast. 2020. [2022-01-07]. .
    1. DiMeglio LA, Acerini CL, Codner E, Craig ME, Hofer SE, Pillay K, Maahs DM. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: Glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Oct 01;19 Suppl 27:105–114. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12737.
    1. Haynes SC, Marcin JP, Dayal P, Tancredi DJ, Crossen S. Impact of telemedicine on visit attendance for paediatric patients receiving endocrinology specialty care. J Telemed Telecare. 2020 Nov 23;:1357633X20972911. doi: 10.1177/1357633X20972911.
    1. Neinstein A, Wong J, Look H, Arbiter Brandon, Quirk Kent, McCanne Steve, Sun Yao, Blum Michael, Adi Saleh. A case study in open source innovation: developing the Tidepool Platform for interoperability in type 1 diabetes management. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Mar;23(2):324–32. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv104. ocv104
    1. Milani R, Chava P, Wilt J, Entwisle J, Karam S, Burton J, Blonde L. Improving Management of Type 2 Diabetes Using Home-Based Telemonitoring: Cohort Study. JMIR Diabetes. 2021 Jun 10;6(2):e24687. doi: 10.2196/24687. v6i2e24687
    1. Amante DJ, Harlan DM, Lemon SC, McManus DD, Olaitan OO, Pagoto SL, Gerber BS, Thompson MJ. Evaluation of a Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Facilitated by Connected Glucose Meters for Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes: Randomized Crossover Trial. JMIR Diabetes. 2021 Mar 11;6(1):e25574. doi: 10.2196/25574. v6i1e25574
    1. Gandrud L, Altan A, Buzinec P, Hemphill J, Chatterton J, Kelley T, Vojta D. Intensive remote monitoring versus conventional care in type 1 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018 Feb 21;19(6):1086–1093. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12654.
    1. Kumar R, Goren N, Stark D, Wall D, Longhurst C. Automated integration of continuous glucose monitor data in the electronic health record using consumer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):532–7. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv206. ocv206
    1. Prahalad P, Addala A, Scheinker D, Hood K, Maahs D. CGM Initiation Soon After Type 1 Diabetes Diagnosis Results in Sustained CGM Use and Wear Time. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan;43(1):e3–e4. doi: 10.2337/dc19-1205. dc19-1205

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe