METHOD OF REMOTE STATUS CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS AT THE OUTPATIENT’S STAGE
Keywords:
diabetes mellitus, remote monitoring, telemedicine
Abstract
This review highlights the current possibilities of remote monitoring of patients with diabetes mellitus, the effectiveness of possible methods of remote monitoring of glycemic profile indicators and other endpoints, and recommendations for choosing one or another method of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus.
References
1.Shea S., Weinstock R.S., Starren J., et al. A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13: 40–51.
2.Polisena J., Tran K., Cimon K., et al. Home telehealth for diabetes management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11:913–30.
3.Steventon A., Bardsley M., Billings J., et al. Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the whole system demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2012; 344:e3874.
4.Zhai Y., Zhu W., Cai Y., et al. Clinical- and costeffectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Medicine. 2014; 93:e312.
5. Dobson R., Whittaker R., Jiang Y., et al. Effectiveness of text message based, diabetes self management support programme (SMS4BG): two arm, parallel randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018:k1959– 10. 10.1136/bmj.k1959.
6.Sood A., Watts S.A., Johnson J.K., et al. Telemedicine consultation for patients with diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2018; 24: 385–91.
7.Verhoeven F., van Gemert-Pijnen L., Dijkstra K., et al. The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2007; 9: e37.
8.Farmer A., Bobrow K., Leon N. et al. Digital messaging to support control for type 2 diabetes (StAR2D): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2021 Oct 21; 21(1):1907. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11874-7.
9.Pal K., Eastwood S., Michie S. et al. Computerbased diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013 (3): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008776.
10.Wu C., Wu Z., Yang L. et al. Evaluation of the clinical outcomes of telehealth for managing diabetes: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018; 97 (43) - e12962. (10.1097/MD.0000000000012962).
11. Heinemann L., Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015; 9: 947–950.
12. Bolinder J., Antuna R., Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P., et al. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, nonmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 388: 2254–2263.
13. Oskarsson P., Antuna R., Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P., et al. Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2018; 61: 539–550.
14. Evans M., Welsh Z., Ells S., Seibold A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world observational studies. Diabetes Ther. 2020; 11: 83–95.
15.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 insulintreated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8: 573– 586.
16. Haak T., Hanaire H., Ajjan R., et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulintreated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8: 55–73.
17. Yaron M., Roitman E., Aharon-Hananel G., et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42: 1178– 1184.
18. Charleer S., De Block C., Van Huffel L., et al. Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43: 389–397.
19. Tyndall V., Stimson R.H., Zammitt N.N., et al. Marked improvement in HbA1c following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2019; 62: 1349–1356.
20. Charleer S., Mathieu C., Nobels F., Gillard P. Accuracy and precision of flash glucose monitoring sensors inserted into the abdomen and upper thigh compared with the upper arm. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018; 20: 1503–1507.
21. Fokkert M.J., van Dijk P.R., Edens M.A., et al. Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017; 5: e000320. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000320.
22. Szadkowska A., Gawrecki A., Michalak A., et al. Flash glucose measurements in children with type 1 diabetes in real-life settings: to trust or not to trust? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018; 20: 17–24.
23. Herman A., Aerts O., Baeck M., et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle® Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 77: 367–373.
24. Mowitz M., Herman A., Baeck M., et al. N,Ndimethylacrylamide—A new sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81: 27–31.
25.Hyry H.S.I., Liippo J.P., Virtanen H.M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in type 1 diabetes patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81: 161–166.
26. Hásková A., Radovnická L., Petruželková L., et al. Real-time CGM is superior to flash glucose monitoring for glucose control in type 1 diabetes: The CORRIDA randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43 (11): 2744-2750. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0112.
27. Šoupal J., Petruželková L., Grunberger G., et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with T1D are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR study. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43 (1): 37-43. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.
28. Beck R.W., Riddlesworth T.D., Ruedy K., et al. Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167 (6): 365-374.
29. Vigersky R.A., Fonda S.J., Chellappa M. et al. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 32–8.
30.Adolfsson P., Christopher Parkin C.G., Thomas A., Krinelke L.G. Selecting the appropriate continuous glucose monitoring system – a practical approach. Eur Endocrinol. 2018 Apr; 14 (1): 24–29. doi: 10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.24
31. Laptev D.N., Emel'janov A.O., Samojlova Ju.G. et al. Distancionnoe nabljudenie i lechenie detej i podrostkov s saharnym diabetom 1 tipa // Problemy jendokrinologii. 2020; 66(4): 50-60.
32. Grunberger G., Sherr J., Allende M., et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline: the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2021; 27(6): 505–537.
2.Polisena J., Tran K., Cimon K., et al. Home telehealth for diabetes management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11:913–30.
3.Steventon A., Bardsley M., Billings J., et al. Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the whole system demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2012; 344:e3874.
4.Zhai Y., Zhu W., Cai Y., et al. Clinical- and costeffectiveness of telemedicine in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Medicine. 2014; 93:e312.
5. Dobson R., Whittaker R., Jiang Y., et al. Effectiveness of text message based, diabetes self management support programme (SMS4BG): two arm, parallel randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018:k1959– 10. 10.1136/bmj.k1959.
6.Sood A., Watts S.A., Johnson J.K., et al. Telemedicine consultation for patients with diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2018; 24: 385–91.
7.Verhoeven F., van Gemert-Pijnen L., Dijkstra K., et al. The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2007; 9: e37.
8.Farmer A., Bobrow K., Leon N. et al. Digital messaging to support control for type 2 diabetes (StAR2D): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2021 Oct 21; 21(1):1907. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11874-7.
9.Pal K., Eastwood S., Michie S. et al. Computerbased diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013 (3): doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008776.
10.Wu C., Wu Z., Yang L. et al. Evaluation of the clinical outcomes of telehealth for managing diabetes: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018; 97 (43) - e12962. (10.1097/MD.0000000000012962).
11. Heinemann L., Freckmann G. CGM versus FGM; or, continuous glucose monitoring is not flash glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015; 9: 947–950.
12. Bolinder J., Antuna R., Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P., et al. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, nonmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 388: 2254–2263.
13. Oskarsson P., Antuna R., Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P., et al. Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2018; 61: 539–550.
14. Evans M., Welsh Z., Ells S., Seibold A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world observational studies. Diabetes Ther. 2020; 11: 83–95.
15.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 insulintreated type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8: 573– 586.
16. Haak T., Hanaire H., Ajjan R., et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulintreated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017; 8: 55–73.
17. Yaron M., Roitman E., Aharon-Hananel G., et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42: 1178– 1184.
18. Charleer S., De Block C., Van Huffel L., et al. Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43: 389–397.
19. Tyndall V., Stimson R.H., Zammitt N.N., et al. Marked improvement in HbA1c following commencement of flash glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2019; 62: 1349–1356.
20. Charleer S., Mathieu C., Nobels F., Gillard P. Accuracy and precision of flash glucose monitoring sensors inserted into the abdomen and upper thigh compared with the upper arm. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018; 20: 1503–1507.
21. Fokkert M.J., van Dijk P.R., Edens M.A., et al. Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017; 5: e000320. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000320.
22. Szadkowska A., Gawrecki A., Michalak A., et al. Flash glucose measurements in children with type 1 diabetes in real-life settings: to trust or not to trust? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018; 20: 17–24.
23. Herman A., Aerts O., Baeck M., et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate in Freestyle® Libre, a newly introduced glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 77: 367–373.
24. Mowitz M., Herman A., Baeck M., et al. N,Ndimethylacrylamide—A new sensitizer in the FreeStyle Libre glucose sensor. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81: 27–31.
25.Hyry H.S.I., Liippo J.P., Virtanen H.M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors in type 1 diabetes patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2019; 81: 161–166.
26. Hásková A., Radovnická L., Petruželková L., et al. Real-time CGM is superior to flash glucose monitoring for glucose control in type 1 diabetes: The CORRIDA randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43 (11): 2744-2750. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0112.
27. Šoupal J., Petruželková L., Grunberger G., et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with T1D are impacted more by continuous glucose monitoring than by insulin delivery method: 3 years of follow-up from the COMISAIR study. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43 (1): 37-43. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.
28. Beck R.W., Riddlesworth T.D., Ruedy K., et al. Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167 (6): 365-374.
29. Vigersky R.A., Fonda S.J., Chellappa M. et al. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 32–8.
30.Adolfsson P., Christopher Parkin C.G., Thomas A., Krinelke L.G. Selecting the appropriate continuous glucose monitoring system – a practical approach. Eur Endocrinol. 2018 Apr; 14 (1): 24–29. doi: 10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.24
31. Laptev D.N., Emel'janov A.O., Samojlova Ju.G. et al. Distancionnoe nabljudenie i lechenie detej i podrostkov s saharnym diabetom 1 tipa // Problemy jendokrinologii. 2020; 66(4): 50-60.
32. Grunberger G., Sherr J., Allende M., et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline: the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2021; 27(6): 505–537.
Published
2022-01-20
How to Cite
Kondratyeva , L., S. Mantsagova, and E. Mitroshina. 2022. “METHOD OF REMOTE STATUS CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS AT THE OUTPATIENT’S STAGE ”. EurasianUnionScientists, January, 05-11. https://doi.org/10.31618/ESU.2413-9335.2021.4.93.1568.
Section
Article
CC BY-ND
A work licensed in this way allows the following:
1. The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work.
2. The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering."
2. The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, in the same form as the original.
