Search

Objective: To assess the impact of a telemedicine visit using the platform Diabetic compared with a face-to-face visit on clinical outcomes, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physicians' satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: PLATEDIAN (Telemedicine on Metabolic Control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Andalusian Patients) (NCT03332472) was a multicenter, randomized, 6-month follow-up, open-label, parallel-group controlled study performed in patients with type 1 diabetes with suboptimal metabolic control (HbA1c <8% [<64 mmol/mol]), treated with multiple daily injections. A total of 388 patients were assessed for eligibility; 379 of them were randomized 1:1 to three face-to-face visits (control cohort [CC]) (n = 167) or the replacement of an intermediate face-to-face visit by a telemedicine visit using Diabetic (intervention cohort [IC]) (n = 163). The primary efficacy end point was the mean change of HbA1c levels from baseline to month 6. Other efficacy and safety end points were mean blood glucose, glucose variability, episodes of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, patient-reported outcomes, and physicians' satisfaction.Results: At month 6, the mean change in HbA1c levels was -0.04 ± 0.5% (-0.5 ± 5.8 mmol/mol) in the CC and 0.01 ± 0.6% (0.1 ± 6.0 mmol/mol) in the IC (P = 0.4941). The number of patients who achieved HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) was 73 and 78 in the CC and IC, respectively. Significant differences were not found regarding safety end points at 6 months. Changes in HRQoL between the first visit and final visit did not differ between cohorts, and, regarding fear of hypoglycemia (FH-15 score ≥28), statistically significant differences observed at baseline remained unchanged at 6 months (P < 0.05).Conclusions: The use of telemedicine in patients with type 1 diabetes with HbA1c <8% (<64 mmol/mol) provides similar efficacy and safety outcomes as face-to-face visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To describe the views of healthcare providers about starting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and to determine the specific factors that contribute to delay insulin initiation.Methods: Two-phases observational descriptive study. In the quantitative phase we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of 380 healthcare professionals (general practitioners (GPs), endocrinologists, internists and nurses). In the qualitative phase, a discussion group reviewed the results of the survey to propose solutions.Results: In poorly controlled patients, 46% of GPs vs. 43.2% of internists and 31.3% of endocrinologists waited 3-6months before starting insulin, and 71.4% of GPs vs. 66.7% of internists vs. 58.8% of endocrinologists need to confirm twice the HbA1c levels. The upper level of basal glucose more frequently considered as good control is 130mg/dL for GPs (35.7%), and 120mg/dL for internists (35.8%) and endocrinologists (37.5%). In patients without comorbidities, 32.5% of endocrinologists vs. 27.2% of internists vs. 17.9% of GPs initiated insulin when HbA1c was >7% while 26.3% of endocrinologists vs. 28.4% of internists vs. 38.4% of GPs initiated insulin when HbA1c was >8%. The interference of the therapy with the patient' social life and the need for time management were the most accepted barriers to initiate insulin.Conclusions: There are significant differences between GPs and endocrinologists regarding the insulin initiation and GPs and internists felt less empowered to manage patients with diabetes. Specific training for professionals and joint work with patients could improve the glycemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]