BackgroundTreatment of hyperglycemia in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with improved maternal and neonatal outcomes and requires intensive clinical input. This is currently achieved by hospital clinic attendance every 2 to 4 weeks with limited opportunity for intervention between these visits.ObjectiveWe conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether the use of a mobile phone-based real-time blood glucose management system to manage women with GDM remotely was as effective in controlling blood glucose as standard care through clinic attendance.MethodsWomen with an abnormal oral glucose tolerance test before 34 completed weeks of gestation were individually randomized to a mobile phone-based blood glucose management solution (GDm-health, the intervention) or routine clinic care. The primary outcome was change in mean blood glucose in each group from recruitment to delivery, calculated with adjustments made for number of blood glucose measurements, proportion of preprandial and postprandial readings, baseline characteristics, and length of time in the study.ResultsA total of 203 women were randomized. Blood glucose data were available for 98 intervention and 85 control women. There was no significant difference in rate of change of blood glucose (–0.16 mmol/L in the intervention and –0.14 mmol/L in the control group per 28 days, P=.78). Women using the intervention had higher satisfaction with care (P=.049). Preterm birth was less common in the intervention group (5/101, 5.0% vs 13/102, 12.7%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-1.01). There were fewer cesarean deliveries compared with vaginal deliveries in the intervention group (27/101, 26.7% vs 47/102, 46.1%, P=.005). Other glycemic, maternal, and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The median time from recruitment to delivery was similar (intervention: 54 days; control: 49 days; P=.23). However, there were significantly more blood glucose readings in the intervention group (mean 3.80 [SD 1.80] and mean 2.63 [SD 1.71] readings per day in the intervention and control groups, respectively; P<.001). There was no significant difference in direct health care costs between the two groups, with a mean cost difference of the intervention group compared to control of –£1044 (95% CI –£2186 to £99). There were no unexpected adverse outcomes.ConclusionsRemote blood glucocse monitoring in women with GDM is safe. We demonstrated superior data capture using GDm-health. Although glycemic control and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar, women preferred this model of care. Further studies are required to explore whether digital health solutions can promote desired self-management lifestyle behaviors and dietetic adherence, and influence maternal and neonatal outcomes. Digital blood glucose monitoring may provide a scalable, practical method to address the growing burden of GDM around the world.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01916694; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01916694 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitat...

BackgroundDiabetes in pregnancy is a global problem. Technological innovations present exciting opportunities for novel approaches to improve clinical care delivery for gestational and other forms of diabetes in pregnancy.ObjectiveTo perform an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether telemedicine solutions offer any advantages compared with the standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy.MethodsThe review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in women with diabetes in pregnancy that compared telemedicine blood glucose monitoring with the standard care were identified. Searches were performed in SCOPUS and PubMed, limited to English language publications between January 2000 and January 2016. Trials that met the eligibility criteria were scored for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration).ResultsA total of 7 trials were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated a modest but statistically significant improvement in HbA1c associated with the use of a telemedicine technology. The mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.33% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.45% (SD 0.58) in the standard care group, representing a mean difference of −0.12% (95% CI −0.23% to −0.02%). When this comparison was limited to women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) only, the mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.22% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.37% (SD 0.61) in the standard care group, mean difference −0.14% (95% CI −0.25% to −0.04%). There were no differences in other maternal and neonatal outcomes reported.ConclusionsThere is currently insufficient evidence that telemedicine technology is superior to standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy; however, there was no evidence of harm. No trials were identified that assessed patient satisfaction or cost of care delivery, and it may be in these areas where these technologies may be found most valuable.

No abstract

BackgroundWe conducted a randomized controlled trial of a digital health system supporting clinical care through monitoring and self-management support in community-based patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a fully automated Internet-linked, tablet computer-based system of monitoring and self-management support (EDGE‚ sElf-management anD support proGrammE) in improving quality of life and clinical outcomes.MethodsWe compared daily use of EDGE with usual care for 12 months. The primary outcome was COPD-specific health status measured with the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C).ResultsA total of 166 patients were randomized (110 EDGE, 56 usual care). All patients were included in an intention to treat analysis. The estimated difference in SGRQ-C at 12 months (EDGE−usual care) was −1.7 with a 95% CI of −6.6 to 3.2 (P=.49). The relative risk of hospital admission for EDGE was 0.83 (0.56-1.24, P=.37) compared with usual care. Generic health status (EQ-5D, EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire) between the groups differed significantly with better health status for the EDGE group (0.076, 95% CI 0.008-0.14, P=.03). The median number of visits to general practitioners for EDGE versus usual care were 4 versus 5.5 (P=.06) and to practice nurses were 1.5 versus 2.5 (P=.03), respectively.ConclusionsThe EDGE clinical trial does not provide evidence for an effect on COPD-specific health status in comparison with usual care, despite uptake of the intervention. However, there appears to be an overall benefit in generic health status; and the effect sizes for improved depression score, reductions in hospital admissions, and general practice visits warrants further evaluation and could make an important contribution to supporting people with COPD.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 40367841; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN40367841 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pmfIJ9KK)

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02333240.