Improving patient self-care using diabetes technologies

Valeria Alcántara-Aragón, Valeria Alcántara-Aragón

Abstract

Diabetes technologies are an unstoppable phenomenon. They offer opportunities to improve patient self-care through empowerment. However, they can be a challenge for both patients and clinicians. Thus, the use of technology may empower or burden. To understand and benefit from the use of diabetes technologies, one must understand the currently unmet needs in diabetes management. These unmet needs call for perspectives beyond glycated hemoglobin and an evaluation of technology solutions. Optimal use of these technologies is necessary to obtain benefits and achieve cost-effectiveness; this process depends on diabetes education and training. This review evaluates clinician and patient perspectives regarding diabetes technologies, followed by an evaluation of technology solutions. Diabetes technology solutions are evaluated according to available results about their effectiveness and their potential to empower people living with diabetes.

Keywords: biomedical technology; diabetes mellitus; patient participation; self-care; therapy.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Stuckey HL, Mullan-Jensen CB, Reach G, et al. Personal accounts of the negative and adaptive psychosocial experiences of people with diabetes in the second diabetes attitudes, wishes and needs (DAWN2) study. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 2466–2474.
    1. Fisher L, Hessler D, Polonsky W, et al. Diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes: prevalence, incidence and change over time. J Diabetes Complications 2016; 30: 1123–1128.
    1. Burridge LH, Foster MM, Donald M, et al. Making sense of change: patients’ views of diabetes and GP-led integrated diabetes care. Health Expect 2016; 19: 74–86.
    1. Majeed W, Thabit H. Closed-loop insulin delivery: current status of diabetes technologies and future prospects. Expert Rev Med Devices 2018; 15: 579–590.
    1. Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 1367–1377.
    1. Naranjo D, Tanenbaum ML, Iturralde E, et al. Diabetes technology: uptake, outcomes, barriers, and the intersection with distress. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 852–858.
    1. Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Ully V, et al. Closing the loop in adults, children and adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes under free living conditions: a psychosocial substudy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 1080–1088.
    1. Ziegler C, Liberman A, Nimri R, et al. Reduced worries of hypoglycaemia, high satisfaction, and increased perceived ease of use after experiencing four nights of MD-logic artificial pancreas at home (DREAM4). J Diabetes Res 2015; 2015: 590308.
    1. Naranjo D, Suttiratana SC, Iturralde E, et al. What end users and stakeholders want from automated insulin delivery systems. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1453–1461.
    1. Tanenbaum ML, Adams RN, Hanes SJ, et al. Optimal use of diabetes devices: clinician perspectives on barriers and adherence to device use. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 484–492.
    1. Chase HP, Beck RW, Xing D, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in youth with type 1 diabetes: 12-month follow-up of the juvenile diabetes research foundation continuous glucose monitoring randomized trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010; 12: 507–515.
    1. Bailey TS, Walsh J, Stone JY. Emerging technologies for diabetes care. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: S278–S284.
    1. Lawton J, Blackburn M, Allen J, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study. BMC Endocr Disord. 20 February 2018; 18: 12. DOI: 10.1186/s12902-018-0239-1.
    1. Human factors and usability engineering – guidance for medical devices including drug-device combination products, version 1. MHRA, 2017, 47.
    1. James S, Perry L, Gallagher R, et al. Diabetes educators’ intended and reported use of common diabetes-related technologies: discrepancies and dissonance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 1277–1286.
    1. Yu S, Varughese B, Li Z, et al. Healthcare resource waste associated with patient nonadherence and early discontinuation of traditional continuous glucose monitoring in real-world settings: a multi-country analysis. Diabetes Tech Therapeut 2018; 20: 420–427.
    1. Seidel D, Boggio Mesnil F, Caruso A. Reimbursement pathways for new diabetes technologies in Europe: top-down versus bottom-up. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 193229681878917.
    1. For the T1D Exchange Clinic Network, the DPV Initiative, and the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registries, Sherr JL, Hermann JM, et al. Use of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and its impact on metabolic control: comparison of results from three large, transatlantic paediatric registries. Diabetologia 2016; 59: 87–91.
    1. Maguire T. Continuous monitoring of glucose for type 1 diabetes: a health technology assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2018; 18: 1–160.
    1. Park C, Le QA. The effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 613–621.
    1. McQueen RB, Ellis SL, Campbell JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2011; 9: 13.
    1. Borot S, Benhamou PY, Atlan C, et al. Practical implementation, education and interpretation guidelines for continuous glucose monitoring: a French position statement. Diabetes & Metabolism 2018; 44: 61–72.
    1. Klonoff DC. Telemedicine for diabetes: current and future trends. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2016; 10: 3–5.
    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. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: helping people change. 3rd ed. New York, Guilford Press, 2013.
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav 2004; 31: 143–164.
    1. Walsh J, Freckmann G, Roberts R, et al. Bolus calculator safety mandates a need for standards. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 3–6.
    1. Yamada E, Okada S, Nakajima Y, et al. Effect of carbohydrate counting using bolus calculators on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes patients during continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Diabetes Investig 2017; 8: 496–500.
    1. Parkin CG, Barnard K, Hinnen DA. Safe and efficacious use of automated bolus advisors in individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy: lessons learned from the automated bolus advisor control and usability study (ABACUS). J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015; 9: 1138–1142.
    1. Gonzalez C, Picón MJ, Tomé M, et al. Expert study: utility of an automated bolus advisor system in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections of insulin—a crossover study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18: 282–287.
    1. Schmidt S, Nørgaard K. Bolus calculators. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014; 8: 1035–1041.
    1. Vallejo Mora M, del R, Carreira M, Anarte MT, et al. Bolus calculator reduces hypoglycemia in the short term and fear of hypoglycemia in the long term in subjects with type 1 diabetes (CBMDI Study). Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 402–409.
    1. Pesl P, Herrero P, Reddy M, et al. An advanced bolus calculator for type 1 diabetes: system architecture and usability results. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2016; 20: 11–17.
    1. Walsh J, Roberts R, Heinemann L. Confusion regarding duration of insulin action: a potential source for major insulin dose errors by bolus calculators. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2014; 8: 170–178.
    1. Klonoff DC, Kerr D. Smart pens will improve insulin therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 551–553.
    1. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 1631–1640.
    1. Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 1367–1377.
    1. Alcántara V, Cubero JM, Prados A, et al. Crisis comicial en paciente diabética. ¿Hipoglucemia o efecto secundario de la monitorización continua de glucosa? Endocrinología y Nutrición 2012; 59: 144–146.
    1. Wang X, Ioacara S, DeHennis A. Long-term home study on nocturnal hypoglycemic alarms using a new fully implantable continuous glucose monitoring system in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2015; 17: 780–786.
    1. Majeed W, Thabit H. Closed-loop insulin delivery: current status of diabetes technologies and future prospects. Expert Rev Med Devices 2018; 15: 579–590.
    1. Lee H, Hong YJ, Baik S, et al. Enzyme-based glucose sensor: from invasive to wearable device. Adv Healthc Mater 2018; 7: e1701150.
    1. Freckmann G, Link M, Westhoff A, et al. Prediction quality of glucose trend indicators in two continuous tissue glucose monitoring systems. Parts of these data were previously presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, September 11–15, 2017, Lisbon, Portugal Diabetes Tech Therapeut 2018; 20: 550–556.
    1. Rayman G, Kröger J, Bolinder J. Could freeStyle Libre TM sensor glucose data support decisions for safe driving? Diabet Med 2018; 35: 491–494.
    1. Ajjan RA, Cummings MH, Jennings P, et al. Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring and continuous glucose monitoring technologies: implications for clinical practice. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2018; 15: 175–184.
    1. Rigla M, Pons B, Rebasa P, et al. Human subcutaneous tissue response to glucose sensors: macrophages accumulation impact on sensor accuracy. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 296–302.
    1. Seidel D, Boggio Mesnil F, Caruso A. Reimbursement pathways for new diabetes technologies in Europe: top-down versus bottom-up. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 193229681878917.
    1. Yu S, Varughese B, Li Z, et al. Healthcare resource waste associated with patient nonadherence and early discontinuation of traditional continuous glucose monitoring in real-world settings: a multicountry analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 420–427.
    1. Giménez M, Díaz-Soto G, Andía V, et al. Documento de consenso SED-SEEP sobre el uso de la monitorización continua de la glucosa en España. Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición 2018; 65: 24–28.
    1. Wan W, Skandari MR, Minc A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring for adults with type 1 diabetes compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose: the DIAMOND randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2018; 41: 1227–1234.
    1. Huang ES, O’Grady M, Basu A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 1269–1274.
    1. McQueen RB, Ellis SL, Campbell JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2011; 9: 13.
    1. Aleppo G, Ruedy KJ, Riddlesworth TD, et al. REPLACE-BG: a randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 538–545.
    1. Aleppo G, Laffel LM, Ahmann AJ, et al. A practical approach to using trend arrows on the Dexcom G5 CGM system for the management of adults with diabetes. J Endocr Soc 2017; 1: 1445–1460.
    1. Dunn TC, Xu Y, Hayter G, et al. Real-world flash glucose monitoring patterns and associations between self-monitoring frequency and glycaemic measures: a European analysis of over 60 million glucose tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018; 137: 37–46.
    1. Ólafsdóttir AF, Attvall S, Sandgren U, et al. A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the flash glucose monitor freestyle libre in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 164–172.
    1. Campbell FM, Murphy NP, Stewart C, et al. Outcomes of using flash glucose monitoring technology by children and young people with type 1 diabetes in a single arm study. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19: 1294–1301.
    1. Scott EM, Bilous RW, Kautzky-Willer A. Accuracy, user acceptability, and safety evaluation for the freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring system when used by pregnant women with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 180–188.
    1. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, et al. A randomized controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med 2018; 35: 483–490.
    1. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Use of flash glucose-sensing technology for 12 months as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther 2017; 8: 573–586.
    1. Hellmund R, Weitgasser R, Blissett D. Cost calculation for a flash glucose monitoring system for UK adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus receiving intensive insulin treatment. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2018; 138: 193–200.
    1. Kropff J, Choudhary P, Neupane S, et al. Accuracy and longevity of an implantable continuous glucose sensor in the PRECISE study: a 180-day, prospective, multicenter, pivotal trial. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 63–68.
    1. Lorenz C, Sandoval W, Mortellaro M. Interference assessment of various endogenous and exogenous substances on the performance of the eversense long-term implantable continuous glucose monitoring system. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 344–352.
    1. Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013; 7: 562–578.
    1. Battelino T, Nimri R, Dovc K, et al. Prevention of hypoglycemia with predictive low glucose insulin suspension in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 764–770.
    1. Forlenza GP, Li Z, Buckingham BA, et al. Predictive low-glucose suspend reduces hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: results of the PROLOG trial. Diabetes Care. Epub ahead of print 8 August 2018. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-0771.
    1. Garg SK. Expanding treatment options for improving health outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 549–551.
    1. Buckingham BA, Christiansen MP, Forlenza GP, et al. Performance of the omnipod personalized model predictive control algorithm with meal bolus challenges in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20: 585–595.
    1. Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Ully V, et al. Closing the loop in adults, children and adolescents with suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes under free living conditions: a psychosocial substudy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017; 11: 1080–1088.
    1. Ziegler C, Liberman A, Nimri R, et al. Reduced worries of hypoglycaemia, high satisfaction, and increased perceived ease of use after experiencing four nights of MD-logic artificial pancreas at home (DREAM4). J Diabetes Res 2015; 2015: 590308.
    1. McAuley SA, de Bock MI, Sundararajan V, et al. Effect of 6 months of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e020274 .
    1. Luley C, Blaik A, Reschke K, et al. Weight loss in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: Effects of telemonitoring plus a diet combination – The Active Body Control (ABC) program. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 91: 286–292.
    1. Esmatjes E, Jansà M, Roca D, et al. The efficiency of telemedicine to optimize metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Telemed study. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014; 16: 435–441.
    1. Liou JK, Soon MS, Chen CH, et al. Shared care combined with telecare improves glycemic control of diabetic patients in a rural underserved community. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20: 175–178.
    1. Daskivich LP, Vasquez C, Martinez C, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a large-scale teleretinal diabetic retinopathy screening program in the Los Angeles county department of health services. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177: 642–649.
    1. Reid MW, Krishnan S, Berget C, et al. CoYoT1 clinic: home telemedicine increases young adult engagement in diabetes care. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 20: 370–379.
    1. Accu-Chek at ATTD and Roche Diabetes Care Services. Roche Diabetes Care at ATTD 2018, (2017, accessed 1 September 2018).
    1. Miller AS, Cafazzo JA, Seto E. A game plan: gamification design principles in mHealth applications for chronic disease management. Health Informatics J 2016; 22: 184–193.
    1. Hompesch M, Kalcher K, Debong F, et al. Significant improvement of blood glucose control in a high risk population of type 1 diabetes using a mobile health app – a retrospective observational study. Vienna, Austria: ProSciento, Inc.
    1. Offringa R, Sheng T, Parks L, et al. Digital diabetes management application improves glycemic outcomes in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 701–708.
    1. Osborn CY, van Ginkel JR, Marrero DG, et al. One drop | mobile on iPhone and Apple Watch: an evaluation of HbA1c improvement associated with tracking self-care. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017; 5: e179.
    1. Downing J, Bollyky J, Schneider J. Use of a connected glucose meter and certified diabetes educator coaching to decrease the likelihood of abnormal blood glucose excursions: the Livongo for diabetes program. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e234.
    1. Pfützner A, Strobl S, Demircik F, et al. Evaluation of a new noninvasive glucose monitoring device by means of standardized meal experiments. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 12: 1178–1183.
    1. Bond K, Reese P, Weispfenning R. form Medtronic plc. Artificial intelligence-powered sugar.IQTM diabetes management app developed by medtronic and ibm watson health now commercially available. IBM News Room, June 22 2018. (accessed 1 September 2018).
    1. Vasiloglou M, Mougiakakou S, Aubry E, et al. A comparative study on carbohydrate estimation: GoCARB vs. Dietitians. Nutrients 2018; 10: 741.
    1. Vaala SE, Hood KK, Laffel L, et al. Use of commonly available technologies for diabetes information and self-management among adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents: a web-based survey study. Interact J Med Res 2015; 4: e24.
    1. Merolli M, Gray K, Martin-Sanchez F, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and therapeutic affordances of social media: findings from a global online survey of people with chronic pain. J Med Internet Res. January 2015; 17: e20. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3915. ISSN 1438-8871 22
    1. Lee JM, Newman MW, Gebremariam A, et al. Real-world use and self-reported health outcomes of a patient-designed do-it-yourself mobile technology system for diabetes: lessons for mobile health. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19: 209–219.
    1. Bautista V, Royo D, Lledo A, et al. from Canal Diabetes. Diabetes F para la. Decálogo sobre el manejo de la diabetes en las redes sociales, 14 November 2015, (accessed 1 September 2018).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere