One Drop App With an Activity Tracker for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial

Chandra Y Osborn, Ashley Hirsch, Lindsay E Sears, Mark Heyman, Jennifer Raymond, Brian Huddleston, Jeff Dachis, Chandra Y Osborn, Ashley Hirsch, Lindsay E Sears, Mark Heyman, Jennifer Raymond, Brian Huddleston, Jeff Dachis

Abstract

Background: In 2017, mobile app support for managing diabetes was available to 64% of the global population of adults with diabetes. One Drop's digital therapeutics solution includes an evidence-based mobile app with global reach, a Bluetooth-connected glucometer, and in-app coaching from Certified Diabetes Educators. Among people with type 1 diabetes and an estimated hemoglobin A1c level≥7.5%, using One Drop for 3 months has been associated with an improved estimated hemoglobin A1c level of 22.2 mg/dL (-0.80%). However, the added value of integrated activity trackers is unknown.

Objective: We conducted a pragmatic, remotely administered randomized controlled trial to evaluate One Drop with a new-to-market activity tracker against One Drop only on the 3-month hemoglobin A1c level of adults with type 1 diabetes.

Methods: Social media advertisements and online newsletters were used to recruit adults (≥18 years old) diagnosed (≥1 year) with T1D, naïve to One Drop's full solution and the activity tracker, with a laboratory hemoglobin A1c level≥7%. Participants (N=99) were randomized to receive One Drop and the activity tracker or One Drop only at the start of the study. The One Drop only group received the activity tracker at the end of the study. Multiple imputation, performed separately by group, was used to correct for missing data. Analysis of covariance models, controlling for baseline hemoglobin A1c, were used to evaluate 3-month hemoglobin A1c differences in intent-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses.

Results: The enrolled sample (N=95) had a mean age of 41 (SD 11) years, was 73% female, 88% White, diagnosed for a mean of 20 (SD 11) years, and had a mean hemoglobin A1c level of 8.4% (SD 1.2%); 11% of the participants did not complete follow up. Analysis of covariance assumptions were met for the ITT and PP models. In ITT analysis, participants in the One Drop and activity tracker condition had a significantly lower 3-month hemoglobin A1c level (mean 7.9%, SD 0.60%, 95% CI 7.8-8.2) than that of the participants in the One Drop only condition (mean 8.4%, SD 0.62%, 95% CI 8.2-8.5). In PP analysis, participants in the One Drop and activity tracker condition also had a significantly lower 3-month hemoglobin A1c level (mean 7.9%, SD 0.59%, 95% CI 7.7-8.1) than that of participants in the One Drop only condition (mean 8.2%, SD 0.58%, 95% CI 8.0-8.4).

Conclusions: Participants exposed to One Drop and the activity tracker for the 3-month study period had a significantly lower 3-month hemoglobin A1c level compared to that of participants exposed to One Drop only during the same timeframe. One Drop and a tracker may work better together than alone in helping people with type 1 diabetes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03459573; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03459573.

Keywords: activity tracker; coaching; diabetes; digital therapy; glucometer; mobile app; type 1 diabetes.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: CO and LS were full-time employees of Informed Data Systems Inc (IDS), the manufacturer of One Drop’s digital therapeutics solution, during the conduct of this research. AH, MH, BH, and JD are currently full-time employees and have stock in IDS. JR is a member of One Drop’s clinical advisory board.

©Chandra Y Osborn, Ashley Hirsch, Lindsay E Sears, Mark Heyman, Jennifer Raymond, Brian Huddleston, Jeff Dachis. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 17.09.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram. OD: One Drop; A1c: hemoglobin A1c.

References

    1. National Diabetes Statistics Report 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. [2020-09-01]. .
    1. American Diabetes Association Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018 May;41(5):917–928. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0007.
    1. Stokes A, Preston SH. Deaths attributable to diabetes in the United States: comparison of data sources and estimation approaches. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170219. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170219.
    1. Nathan DM, DCCT/EDIC Research Group The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9–16. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2112.
    1. DCCT Research Group. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M, Rand L, Siebert C. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 30;329(14):977–986. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401.
    1. Mulvaney SA, Hood KK, Schlundt DG, Osborn CY, Johnson KB, Rothman RL, Wallston KA. Development and initial validation of the barriers to diabetes adherence measure for adolescents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011 Oct;94(1):77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.06.010.
    1. American Diabetes Association 5. Lifestyle management: standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl 1):S46–S60. doi: 10.2337/dc19-s005.
    1. American Diabetes Association 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl 1):S61–S70. doi: 10.2337/dc19-s006.
    1. Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Babli S, Almonea K, Al Dawish MA. Fear of self-injecting and self-testing and the related risk factors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Diabetes Ther. 2017 Feb;8(1):75–83. doi: 10.1007/s13300-016-0221-8.
    1. Klonoff DC. Continuous glucose monitoring: roadmap for 21st century diabetes therapy. Diabetes Care. 2005 May;28(5):1231–1239. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.5.1231.
    1. Weissberg-Benchell J, Antisdel-Lomaglio J, Seshadri R. Insulin pump therapy: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2003 Apr;26(4):1079–1087. doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.4.1079.
    1. Heintzman ND. A digital ecosystem of diabetes data and technology: services, systems, and tools enabled by wearables, sensors, and apps. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Dec 20;10(1):35–41. doi: 10.1177/1932296815622453.
    1. Barnes TL, Watson DA, Gandrud LM. Higher weekly physical activity in T1D pediatric patients is associated with improved target glucose levels—findings from six months of Fitbit-monitored activity. Diabetes. 2018 May;67(Suppl 1):1387-P. doi: 10.2337/db18-1387-p.
    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. Sears LE, Dachis J, Heyman M, Head R, Huddleston B, Osborn CY. People with type 1 diabetes paying for a One Drop coach improve when not at goal, or stay at goal when starting at goal. Ann Behav Med (SBM 39th Annual Meeting Abstract Supplement) 2018;52(Suppl 1):S1–S838. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay013.
    1. Osborn CY, van Ginkel JR, Rodbard D, Heyman M, Marrero DG, Huddleston B, Dachis J. One Drop | Mobile: an evaluation of hemoglobin A1c improvement linked to app engagement. JMIR Diabetes. 2017 Aug 24;2(2):e21. doi: 10.2196/diabetes.8039.
    1. Osborn CY. The One Drop diabetes iOS and WatchOS app with in-app coaching from Certified Diabetes Educators improves blood glucose, carbohydrate intake, and physical activity. Stanford MedX; September 15-17, 2017; Palo Alto, CA. 2017.
    1. Osborn CY, van Ginkel JR, Marrero DG, Rodbard D, Huddleston B, Dachis J. One Drop | mobile on iPhone and Apple watch: an evaluation of HbA1c improvement associated with tracking self-care. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Nov 29;5(11):e179. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8781.
    1. Research2Guidance Digital Diabetes Care Market 2018-2022: Ready To Take Off. 2018.
    1. Klonoff DC, Parkes JL, Kovatchev BP, Kerr D, Bevier WC, Brazg RL, Christiansen M, Bailey TS, Nichols JH, Kohn MA. Investigation of the accuracy of 18 marketed blood glucose monitors. Diabetes Care. 2018 Aug;41(8):1681–1688. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1960.
    1. Osborn C, Heyman M, Dachis J. The One Drop Mobile app and Experts program is evidence-based and improves blood glucose. Ann Behav Med (SBM 38th Annual Meeting Abstract Supplement) 2017;51(Suppl 1):S1–S2867.
    1. Kim SE, Castro Sweet CM, Gibson E, Madero EN, Rubino B, Morrison J, Rosen D, Imberg W, Cousineau MR. Evaluation of a digital diabetes prevention program adapted for the Medicaid population: study design and methods for a non-randomized, controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018 Jun;10:161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.05.007.
    1. Trief PM, Fisher L, Sandberg J, Cibula DA, Dimmock J, Hessler DM, Forken P, Weinstock RS. Health and psychosocial outcomes of a telephonic couples behavior change intervention in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2016 Dec;39(12):2165–2173. doi: 10.2337/dc16-0035.
    1. de Boer MR, Waterlander WE, Kuijper LD, Steenhuis IH, Twisk JW. Testing for baseline differences in randomized controlled trials: an unhealthy research behavior that is hard to eradicate. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Jan 24;12(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0162-z.
    1. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
    1. Egbewale BE, Lewis M, Sim J. Bias, precision and statistical power of analysis of covariance in the analysis of randomized trials with baseline imbalance: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Apr 09;14(1):49. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-49.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869–c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
    1. Ranganathan P, Pramesh C, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analysis. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(3):144–146. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.184823.
    1. Detry MA, Lewis RJ. The intention-to-treat principle: how to assess the true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA. 2014 Jul 02;312(1):85–86. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.7523.
    1. Shrier I, Verhagen E, Stovitz SD. The intention-to-treat analysis is not always the conservative approach. Am J Med. 2017 Jul;130(7):867–871. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.023.
    1. Brody T. Clinical Trials, Second Edition. Boston: Academic Press; 2016. Chapter 8 - Intent-to-Treat Analysis Versus Per Protocol Analysis; pp. 253–268.
    1. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 05;377(14):1391–1398. doi: 10.1056/nejmsm1605385.
    1. Mayberry LS, Osborn CY. Empirical validation of the information-motivation-behavioral skills model of diabetes medication adherence: a framework for intervention. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(5):1246–1253. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1828.
    1. Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Bailey SC, Wolf MS. The mechanisms linking health literacy to behavior and health status. Am J Health Behav. 2011;35(1):118–128. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.35.1.11.
    1. Goode AP, Hall KS, Batch BC, Huffman KM, Hastings SN, Allen KD, Shaw RJ, Kanach FA, McDuffie JR, Kosinski AS, Williams JW, Gierisch JM. The impact of interventions that integrate accelerometers on physical activity and weight loss: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med. 2017 Feb;51(1):79–93. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9829-1.
    1. Miyamoto SW, Henderson S, Young HM, Pande A, Han JJ. Tracking health data is not enough: a qualitative exploration of the role of healthcare partnerships and mHealth technology to promote physical activity and to sustain behavior change. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jan 20;4(1):e5. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4814.
    1. Macridis S, Johnston N, Johnson S, Vallance JK. Consumer physical activity tracking device ownership and use among a population-based sample of adults. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0189298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189298.
    1. Dal-Ré R, Janiaud P, Ioannidis JPA. Real-world evidence: how pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018 Apr 03;16(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1038-2.
    1. Menke A, Orchard TJ, Imperatore G, Bullard KM, Mayer-Davis E, Cowie CC. The prevalence of type 1 diabetes in the United States. Epidemiology. 2013;24(5):773–774. doi: 10.1097/ede.0b013e31829ef01a.
    1. Balas E, Weingarten S, Garb CT, Blumenthal D, Boren S, Brown GD. Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Feb 14;160(3):301–308. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.3.301.
    1. Weaver KW, Hirsch IB. The hybrid closed-loop system: evolution and practical applications. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018 Jun;20(S2):S216–S223. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0091.
    1. Fukuoka Y, Lindgren T, Jong S. Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of a mobile phone and pedometer-based physical activity program in a diverse sample of sedentary women. Public Health Nurs. 2012;29(3):232–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2011.00997.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere