Utilization of a Cloud-Based Diabetes Management Program for Insulin Initiation and Titration Enables Collaborative Decision Making Between Healthcare Providers and Patients

William C Hsu, Ka Hei Karen Lau, Ruyi Huang, Suzanne Ghiloni, Hung Le, Scott Gilroy, Martin Abrahamson, John Moore, William C Hsu, Ka Hei Karen Lau, Ruyi Huang, Suzanne Ghiloni, Hung Le, Scott Gilroy, Martin Abrahamson, John Moore

Abstract

Background: Overseeing proper insulin initiation and titration remains a challenging task in diabetes care. Recent advances in mobile technology have enabled new models of collaborative care between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs). We hypothesized that the adoption of such technology could help individuals starting basal insulin achieve better glycemic control compared with standard clinical practice.

Materials and methods: This was a 12 ± 2-week randomized controlled study with 40 individuals with type 2 diabetes who were starting basal insulin due to poor glycemic control. The control group (n = 20) received standard face-to-face care and phone follow-up as needed in a tertiary center, whereas the intervention group (n = 20) received care through the cloud-based diabetes management program where regular communications about glycemic control and insulin doses were conducted via patient self-tracking tools, shared decision-making interfaces, secure text messages, and virtual visits (audio, video, and shared screen control) instead of office visits.

Results: By intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention group achieved a greater hemoglobin A1c decline compared with the control group (3.2 ± 1.5% vs. 2.0% ± 2.0%; P = 0.048). The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire showed a significant improvement in the intervention group compared with the control group (an increase of 10.1 ± 11.7 vs. 2.1 ± 6.5 points; P = 0.01). HCPs spent less time with patients in the intervention group compared with those in the control group (65.9 min per subject vs. 81.6 min per subject). However, the intervention group required additional training time to use the mobile device.

Conclusions: Mobile health technology could be an effective tool in sharing data, enhancing communication, and improving glycemic control while enabling collaborative decision making in diabetes care.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Self-tracking visualization. The 24-h clock shows all of the subject's scheduled health actions. In this case the subject has three health actions scheduled between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. (two pills and a blood glucose measurement) and one health action scheduled between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. (an injection of 13 units of insulin). He can click on any of these health actions to see more information and to report adherence. Subjects can see and report their health actions even before they are due, which allows for proactive planning in their busy lives. The three buttons along the right side of the view are shortcuts to charts, messaging, and frequently asked questions. (The name and photograph used in this example do not belong to any study subject.)
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Insulin titration decision support (PREDICTIVE 303 protocol). On the left side of the screenshot, the charts of the subject's health actions are displayed with each medication adherence and blood glucose adherence event indicated by a check. Pharmacokinetic curves are drawn for medications to highlight subtherapeutic levels from nonadherence, and individual blood glucose readings are plotted. On the right side of the screenshot, personalized decision support for the PREDICTIVE 303 protocol for insulin titration is visualized. Note that the language of the decision support appreciates the likelihood that a healthcare provider considers much more information in making an informed decision than can be accounted for in such a simple algorithm. (The name and photograph used in this example do not belong to any study subject.)
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
Changes in (top panel) hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and (bottom panel) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) score in the intervention group versus the control group over a 3-month period.

References

    1. Peters AL, Legorreta AP, Ossorio RC, et al. : Quality of outpatient care provided to diabetic patients. A health maintenance organization experience. Diabetes Care 1996;19:601–606
    1. World Health Organization: Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases. 2010. (accessed February7, 2015)
    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. : Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015;38:140–149
    1. American Diabetes Association: (7) Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2015;38(Suppl):S41–S48
    1. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. : Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 2012;35:1364–1379
    1. Rosenstock J, Davies M, Home PD, et al. : A randomised, 52-week, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine when administered as add-on to glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2008;51:408–416
    1. Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J, et al. : The treat-to-target trial: randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3080–3086
    1. Swinnen SG, Dain MP, Aronson R, et al. : A 24-week, randomized, treat-to-target trial comparing initiation of insulin glargine once-daily with insulin detemir twice-daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1176–1178
    1. Meneghini L, Koenen C, Weng W, et al. : The usage of a simplified self-titration dosing guideline (303 Algorithm) for insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes—results of the randomized, controlled PREDICTIVE 303 study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007;9:902–913
    1. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, et al. : Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2002–2012
    1. Weinstock RS, Teresi JA, Goland R, et al. : Glycemic control and health disparities in older ethnically diverse underserved adults with diabetes: five-year results from the Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) study. Diabetes Care 2011;34:274–279
    1. Charpentier G, Benhamou PY, Dardari D, et al. : The Diabeo software enabling individualized insulin dose adjustments combined with telemedicine support improves HbA1c in poorly controlled type 1 diabetic patients: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter trial (TeleDiab 1 Study). Diabetes Care 2011;34:533–539
    1. Davis RM, Hitch AD, Salaam MM, et al. : TeleHealth improves diabetes self-management in an underserved community: diabetes TeleCare. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1712–1717
    1. Turner J, Larsen M, Tarassenko L, et al. : Implementation of telehealth support for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin treatment: an exploratory study. Inform Prim Care 2009;17:47–53
    1. Joslin Diabetes Center: Joslin Clinical Guideline for Adults with Diabetes. (accessed December15, 2014)
    1. Cryer PE, Davis SN, Shamoon H: Hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26:1902–1912
    1. Hermansen K, Davies M, Derezinski T, et al. : A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1269–1274
    1. Moore J: A new wave of patient-centered care: apprenticeship in the management of chronic disease. J Clin Outcomes Manage 2012;19:293–300
    1. Kraschnewski JL, Gabbay RA: Role of health information technologies in the Patient-centered Medical Home. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013;7:1376–1385
    1. Brown J, Collins A, Duguid P: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 1989;18:32–42
    1. Collins A, BBN Laboratories, Brown JS, Newman SE, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center: Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1987
    1. Moore J, Marshall M, Judge D, et al. : Technology-supported apprenticeship in the management of hypertension—a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Outcomes Manag 2014;21:110–122
    1. Campbell RK, White JR: Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2002;42:602–611
    1. Barrett L: Health and Caregiving Among 50+: Ownership, Use and Interest in Mobile Technology. (accessed March10, 2015)
    1. Årsand E, Frøisland DH, Skrøvseth SO, et al. : Mobile health applications to assist patients with diabetes: lessons learned and design implications. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012;6:1197–1206
    1. Quinn CC, Clough SS, Minor JM, et al. : WellDoc mobile diabetes management randomized controlled trial: change in clinical and behavioral outcomes and patient and physician satisfaction. Diabetes Technol Ther 2008;10:160–168
    1. Gerber BS, Stolley MR, Thompson AL, et al. : Mobile phone text messaging to promote healthy behaviors and weight loss maintenance: a feasibility study. Health Informatics J 2009;15:17–25
    1. Tate DF, Wing RR, Winett RA: Using Internet technology to deliver a behavioral weight loss program. JAMA 2001;285:1172–1177
    1. Quinn CC, Shardell MD, Terrin ML, et al. : Cluster-randomized trial of a mobile phone personalized behavioral intervention for blood glucose control. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1934–1942

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner