The impact of telemedicine application on the management of diabetes patients is unclear, as the results are not consistent among different studies. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of telemedicine interventions on change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) and body mass index (BMI) in diabetes patients.
Electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS were searched to identify relevant studies published until April 2012, supplemented by references from the selected articles. Study search and selection were performed by independent reviewers. Of the 6.258 articles retrieved, 13 RCTs (4207 patients) were included. Random effects model was applied to estimate the pooled results.
Telemedicine was associated with a statistically significant and clinically relevant absolute decline in HbA1c level compared to control (mean difference -0.44% [-4.8 mmol/mol] and 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.61 to -0.26% [-6.7 to -2.8 mmol/mol]; p<0.001). LDL-c was reduced in 6.6 mg/dL (95% CI -8.3 to -4.9; p<0.001), but the clinical relevance of this effect can be questioned. No effects of telemedicine strategies were seen on systolic (-1.6 mmHg and 95% CI -7.2 to 4.1) and diastolic blood pressure (-1.1 mmHg and 95% CI -3.0 to 0.8). The 2 studies that assessed the effect on BMI demonstrated a tendency of BMI reduction in favor of telemedicine.
Telemedicine strategies combined to the usual care were associated with improved glycemic control in diabetic patients. No clinical relevant impact was observed on LDL-c and blood pressure, and there was a tendency of BMI reduction in diabetes patients who used telemedicine, but these outcomes should be further explored in future trials.
Citation: Marcolino MS, Maia JX, Alkmim MBM, Boersma E, Ribeiro AL (2013) Telemedicine Application in the Care of Diabetes Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE8(11): e79246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079246
Editor: Sompop Bencharit, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America
Received: May 26, 2013; Accepted: September 20, 2013; Published: November 8, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Marcolino et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was funded by Brazilian research agencies Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico (563893/2010-9), Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais and Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (PPM 328-08). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Diabetes mellitus (DM) has taken epidemic proportions throughout the world and is considered among the most challenging health problems in the 21st century . The disease is associated with a number of health-related complications, high morbidity and mortality rates and thus imposes substantial social and economic burdens worldwide .
Challenges in the care of diabetic patients require innovative management strategies to improve glycemic and pressoric control, as these are frequently above the desired goals . The optimal management requires an organized, systematic and coordinated approach . Strong evidence demonstrates beneficial effects of patient monitoring and education, focused on a prominent role of the individual self-care with the support of healthcare professionals . This brings into focus the great advances in telecommunication technology and information technology, which can be exploited to improve diabetes management [5,6]. Telemedicine can be a strategy for closer monitoring and intervention to achieve not only better metabolic control, but also to help in the global care of individuals with multiple chronic illnesses [3,7,8].
Over the last decade, several studies have addressed the feasibility and efficacy of telemedicine strategies on the management of diabetes patients . Many studies have proved it to be feasible, but the real impact of this of intervention in general and specific clinical situations is still unknown and poorly documented, as the results are not consistent among different studies [6,10]. If proven beneficial, the intervention could be widely disseminated to clinical practice and might help to reduce the burden of the disease.
The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of telemedicine interventions combined with usual care compared to usual care alone on the management of adult patients with DM type 1 or 2, in terms of change in hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) levels or body mass index (BMI).
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement . The investigators wrote a protocol and registered it with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identification number: CRD42012002779) in August 2012 .
Data sources and searches
A literature search with no language restriction was performed using MEDLINE (accessed by Pubmed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS databases to identify relevant studies published until April 2012. On Pubmed, combinations of the MESH terms diabetes, medical informatics, clinical decision support system, computer assisted decision making, information systems and telemedicine were used. In other databases, different combinations of the same terms and the keywords mobile health, telehealth, telehealthcare, health information technology were used. The search was supplemented by the reference lists of the identified papers.
This study included RCTs that compared any strategy of telemedicine application in adult care (i.e. patients ≥18 years) with DM type 1 or 2 in which there was a direct or indirect (i.e. via another healthcare provider) personalized feedback from a healthcare practitioner to the patient about the forwarded clinical data, with a control group not using telemedicine. We restricted ourselves to trials that studied outpatients, and that evaluated at least one of the following outcomes: HbA1c, blood pressure, BMI or LDL-c.
The strategies of telemedicine application included in this review were computerized systems for information exchange, video conferencing, and exchange of information via telephone or other mobile devices, short message service, or through the internet.
Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) gestational diabetes; (2) studies in patients under 18 years; (3) RCT which did not include feedback from a healthcare practitioner to the patient or other healthcare provider about forwarded clinical data; (4) studies with less than 6 months of follow-up; (5) duplicate publications or substudies of included trials. In this case, the publication with longer follow-up was chosen.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were independently evaluated by 2 investigators (J.X.M. and M.S.M.). Abstracts that did not provide enough information for analysis of the intervention or the methodology regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined in this review were retrieved for full-text evaluation.
Subsequently, the 2 investigators independently evaluated full-text articles and determined study eligibility. Disagreements were solved by consensus, and if disagreements persisted, by a third investigator (A.L.R.). The corresponding authors were contacted as needed to obtain data not included in the published report.
The two investigators independently conducted data extraction, and disagreements were solved by the third investigator. Study quality assessment included adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcomes assessors, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and description of losses and exclusions . Studies without clear descriptions of an adequate sequence generation, and studies with loss to follow-up greater than 20% if analyzed by intention to treat (ITT) and greater than 5% if not ITT were excluded.
Data synthesis and analyses
The primary outcome was absolute changes in HbA1c from baseline to follow-up. HbA1c is recognized as a valuable indicator of treatment effectiveness in patients with diabetes , because it reflects average glycemia over several months and is strongly correlated with diabetes complications [2,14,15].
Secondary outcomes included the absolute changes of LDL-c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and BMI from baseline to follow-up. They were obtained from original studies or calculated (differences in arithmetic means before and after the intervention) . When deviation of the mean difference was not available, the authors were contacted. In case of no response or no availability of the requested information, variance was estimated by using the reported confidence intervals, reported p-values, or an imputation using the standard deviation at follow-up in both groups to calculate the standard error of difference. One study reported data on two intervention groups and one control group . In meta-analysis, data of these intervention groups were combined and compared to the control group.
A random-effects model was used for pooling the included studies, as clinical heterogeneity was expected. Statistical heterogeneity of the treatment effect among studies was assessed using Cochran Q test, and the inconsistency I2 test in which values greater than 50% were considered indicative of high heterogeneity. Between-study heterogeneity was performed using the chi-square statistic. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were pre-specified and performed only for the primary outcome. In sensitivity analyses, the effect size was examined by omitting studies individually and also excluding simultaneously studies with extreme results and those with the biggest losses. In this case, the effect sizes were compared by using z tests.
Subgroup analyses aimed to assess whether there was a difference in results of HbA1c in studies which included exclusively patients with DM type 1 vs. type 2, interventions which included changes in patient prescription through telemedicine vs. the ones which did not, intervention made by physicians vs. by nurses, interventions that lasted for 6 months vs. the ones that lasted at least one year. Although not pre-specified in the protocol, a subgroup analysis regarding the average HbA1c on baseline was performed.
A funnel plot of the trial effect size by its standard error was constructed to assess the possibility of publication bias . The symmetry of the plot was evaluated both visually and formally with Egger’s test. The implications for our results were assessed by the fail-safe N and the trim-and-fill method .
Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2.0.
Results of the Review
Description of the studies
A flow diagram of search and selection is shown in Figure 1. The database search resulted in 6258 (6039 Pubmed, 117 Lilacs, 102 Cochrane Trials) articles and 29 other articles were identified from the references of included studies, totalizing 6287 articles. Of these, 6203 (5984 Pubmed, 117 Lilacs, 102 Cochrane Trials) were excluded after title and/or abstract analysis. Therefore, 84 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 69 articles were excluded. Consequently, 15 articles with 13 studies were included in the systematic review.
The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. All 13 studies selected for the review were published in English. Included studies had a total of 4207 patients, 56% were men, 2252 patients were randomized to telemedicine strategies and 1955 to usual care. Ten studies took place in United States and 3 in Europe. One study  received funding from industry alone, nine studies [3,10,20-25] were funded by the government alone and three studies [4,26,27] received funding from both.
|Study||Scenario||Mean age in years (SD)||Male sex (%)||Duration of diabetes I years (SD)||Duration of diabetes C years (SD)||Mean basal HbA1C (%)||Type of diabetes||Treatment in use||Losses (%)||Duration of follow up (months)||Outcomes|
|Bond et al, 2007||University of Washington Diabetes Center, Puget Sound Health System, and local diabetes fairs in the greater Seattle area, United States||67.2 (11.9)||55.0||16.1 (10.5)||17.8 (11.7)||7.1||1 and 2 (87% DM2)||49% insulin, 45% insulin and oral agents and 6% diet and exercise||0||6||HbA1c, BP, weight, total and HDL cholesterol|
|Bujnowska et al, 2011||Primary care units in Poland||55.3 (52.6)||53.5||8.1 (7.6)||7.7 (6.8)||7.6||2||Groups equally divided in insulin users and non-users||5.0||6||HbA1C, BMI, BP|
|Charpentier et al, 2011||Outpatient clinics of 17 hospital sites in France||33.8 (12.9)||36.7||14.7 (9.1)||16.9 (10.5)||9.1||1||Basal-bolus insulin by multiple injections or pump for at least 6 months||10.0||6||HbA1C|
|Kirkman et al, 1994 & Weinberger et al, 1995||General Medicine Clinic of the Durham Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, North Carolina, United States||63.5 (19.7)||99.2||11.5 (8.4)||10.3 (7.7)||10.7||2||Currently use of oral hypoglycemic agent or insulin and care at VA general medicine clinic were inclusion criteria||8.7||12||HbA1C|
|Montori et al, 2004||Diabetes clinics Primary care units affiliated with Mayo Clinic, United States||42.9 (4.7)||32.5||19.0 (1.8)||17.9 (2.1)||9.0||1||Multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps||19.0||6||HbA1C|
|Piette et al, 2000||2 general medicine clinics of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in California, United States||55.0 (10.0)||58.5||Not informed||Not informed||8.7||Not informed||Use of a hypoglycemic agent (oral or insulin) was inclusion criteria. 37.5% used insulin||11.0||12||HbA1C|
|Piette et al, 2001||Veterans Affairs outpatients clinics (3 general medicine clinics and 1 diabetes clinic) in California, United States||60.5 (20.0)||97.0||Not informed||Not informed||8.2||Not informed||Active use of a hypoglycemic agent was inclusion criteria. 47% used insulin||6.8||12||HbA1C|
|Ralston et al, 2009||UW Internal Medicine Clinic of Washington University, United States||57.0*||50.6||Not informed||Not informed||8.0||2||Diet, oral medications and or insulin (38% used insulin)||11.0||12||HbA1C, BP, total cholesterol|
|Ralston et al, 2009||UW Internal Medicine Clinic of Washington University, United States||57.0*||50.6||Not informed||Not informed||8.0||2||Diet, oral medications and or insulin (38% used insulin)||11.0||12||HbA1C, BP, total cholesterol|
|Rodriguez-Idígoras et al, 2009||Primary care units in Malaga, Spain||64.0 (21.5)||51.5||11.3 (0.6)||10.2 (0.6)||7.5||2||Diet, oral medications and or insulin||9.5||12||HbA1C, BP, BMI, lipids|
|Shea et al, 2006 & Shea et al, 2010||Primary care units in New York State, United States||71.0 (13.3)||37.0||Not informed||Not informed||7.4||1 and 2||Diet, oral medications and or insulin||14.9||12||HbA1C, BP, lipids|
|Smith et al, 2008||Primary care units affiliated with Mayo Clinic's site in Rochester, United States||61.0 (8.2)||47.5||12.9 (3.3)||14.0 (3.4)||7.3||1 and 2 (93% DM2)||Diet, oral medications (46%) and or insulin (33%)||4.0||21||HbA1C, LDL, systolic and diastolic BP|
|Stone et al, 2010||Veterans Affairs Primary care clinics in Pittsburgh, United States||Not informed||98.6||Not informed||Not informed||9.5||2||Pharmacological treatment for at least 1 year: 76% used oral medications, 58% used insulin||8.6||6||HbA1C, BP, lipids, weight|
|Wakefiel et al, 2011||Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinics in Iowa City, United States||68.0 (10.0)||98.0||Not informed||Not informed||7.2||2||Not specified||19.0||6||HbA1C, SBP|
|Study||Intervention||Medium used for interaction||Target of intervention||Applicator of intervention||Applicator changed medication||Planned frequency of intervention||Real frequency of intervention (average)|
|Bond et al, 2007||Internet program including communication with nurse (SMS, chat, email) and register of self-management activities (glucose, BP) by patients. Nurse monitored data and contacted patients when necessary. Forum discussion with the principal investigator.||Web||Patients||Nurse||No||Not informed, except for the forum discussions: weekly||Not informed|
|Bujnowska et al, 2011||Telehome monitoring system. Patients sent glucose data, and the system analyzed and organized data according to protocols that included alerts and SMS in case of critical values for urgent medical attention.||Telemonitoring device and mobile phone||Patients||Physicians||Yes||Patients should transmit glucose values at least once a week. Practitioners sent feedback in case of critical values||Data transmissions:1.64/patient/week (total 1.850). Interventions (email, phone calls, SMS): 0.42/patient/week (total 474).|
|Charpentier et al, 2011||Diabeo software use plus teleconsultations (group 3). Diabeo: software for patient's smartphones with insulin bolus calculators, plasma glucose targets, automatic algorithms, data transmission to medical staff.||Mobile phone and telephone calls||Patients||Physicians||Yes||Teleconsultations every 2 weeks||8.70 teleconsultations/patient in 6 months. Mean duration of each teleconsultation 7.4 minutes|
|Kirkman et al, 1994 & Weinberger et al, 1995||Calls to educate patients, facilitate adherence to treatment, monitor health status, improve problem solving capacity, and facilitate access to care. Patients could call nurses. Physicians called patients if necessary, according to nurses alerts.||Telephone calls||Patients||Nurse||No||Monthly nurse calls (more frequent if necessary). Patients could call whenever they wanted||13 nurse contacts per patient (1.10/patient/month). 12 min/contact. In 19% of contacts nurses alerted physicians of problems|
|Montori et al, 2004||Transmission of glucose levels and feedback from the study nurse.||Telephone calls||Patients||Nurse*||Yes||Every 2 weeks, 24h after patients transmitted glucometer data||Nurses spent, per patient, 76 min reviewing data, 9 min discussing with endocrinologist and 68 min returning to patients|
|Piette et al, 2000||ATDM: calls in which patients reported clinical information using the keypad and could listen to health promotion automated messages. Nurse reviewed the reports and contacted patients.||Telephone calls||Patients||Nurse||No||Biweekly ADTM calls. Nurse reviewed data weekly and called patients as necessary||1.40 ADTM calls/month. Half of patients completed 78% or more of their attempted assessments|
|Piette et al, 2000||ATDM: calls in which patients reported clinical information using the keypad and could listen to health promotion automated messages. Nurse reviewed reports and contacted patients.||Telephone calls||Patients||Nurse||No||ADTM calls: not informed. Nurse reviewed data weekly and called patients as necessary||15 ADTM calls (1.25/month) and 12 glucose transmissions (1.00/month). Nurse communicated with patients 1.10/month|
|Ralston et al, 2009||Website including electronic medical records, stored glucose values, online diary with feedback, educational website on diabetes. Email exchange with nurses||Web||Patients||Nurses||Yes||Nurse analyzed glucose data at least once a week. Email exchange weekly in the beginning of fw. Patients sent emails to nurses whenever they wanted||76% of patients accessed their medical records, 69% sent emails to nurses, 43% uploaded glucose measures (total 189 uploads) and 33% entered data about diet, exercise, medication|
|Rodriguez-Idígoras et al, 2009||Transmission of glucose values to a call center, which had an alarm and a protocol of interventions in case of abnormal values. Patients could call their physician or the call center staff and vice versa||Mobile phone||Patients||Nurses and physicians||Not informed||Not informed||7.40 glucose transmissions/patient/ month; patients made 3.00 and received 2.60 phone calls per month|
|Shea et al, 2006 & Shea et al, 2010||Home telemedicine unit connected to glucose and blood pressure monitors, videoconferencing, web portal with access to patients clinical data, educational web site created for the project by ADA||Telemonitoring device, videoconferences and Web||Patients||Nurses||No||Not informed||28 videoconferences, 560 glucose uploads, 185 BP uploads, 49 visits to patients web portals, 3 visits to educational site per patient|
|Smith et al, 2008||After a patient visit, an endocrinologist reviewed the records and created a note with suggestions attached to an EB message that was sent to the PCP 48h before the next visit of that patient||Web||Primary care physicians||Physicians (endocrinologists)||No||Each patient visit||Endocrinologists reviewed 1361 consultations, 60% resulted in suggestions. PCP informed they used 49% of them|
|Stone et al, 2010||Telemonitoring device: daily educational reminders, daily transmission of data (glucose, BP, weight). Nurse analyzed and contacted patients when necessary, and also called at least monthly for individualized counseling||Telemonitoring device and telephone calls||Patients||Nurses||Yes*||Daily transmission of glucose and BP. Call whenever necessary, more frequent if high risk detected by the data. Monthly calls for counseling||Duration of nurse-patient telephone contact in hours/patient/month: intervention 1.3h, controls 0.3h. 11% of patients never transmitted data.|
|Wakefiel et al, 2011||Home telehealth device. Patients entered BP and glucose and answered questions, receiving automated feedback. Nurses reviewed data daily and contacted patients by telephone, letter or individualized messages on the device. Physicians contacted if BP or glucose values reached pre-determined values||Telemonitoring device and telephone calls||Patients||Nurses||No||Daily transmissions of data and automated device messages. Nurse and physicians individualized contacts as necessary||Not informed|
Interventions took place in different care settings: 8 studies took place in primary care, 4 studies secondary care and 1 included both primary and secondary care settings. The duration of the intervention was 6 months in 6 studies, 12 months in 6 and 18 months in one study.
The intervention was particularly targeted at monitoring clinical values, or monitoring combined with education. As per design of our meta-analysis, all studies included personalized feedback from a healthcare practitioner to the patient or other healthcare provider about the forwarded clinical data. The intervention had varying degrees of complexity. Telemedicine strategies included different combinations of transmission of monitoring data, videoconferencing, educational web site, educational reminders, email exchange, evidence-based message to the general physician, teleconsultation, telephone calls, short message service and forum discussion.
Eight trials reported the frequency of data transmission from patients to nurses (six trials) or physicians (two trials). Eight trials provided information about the frequency of feedback of information to patients. The majority of the trials succeeded in data transmission at a maximum frequency of once a week.
Quality (Risk of Bias) Assessment
Among the included studies, 100% presented adequate sequence generation, 62% reported allocation concealment (8 of 13), 38% had blinded assessment of outcomes (5 of 13), 92% described losses to follow-up and exclusions (12 of 13), and 92% used the intention-to-treat principle for statistical analyses (12 of 13) (Table 3).
|Study||Adequate sequence generation||Allocation concealment||Blinding of outcome||Description of losses and exclusions||Intention to treat analysis|
|Bond et al, 2007||Yes||Unclear||Yes||No*||Yes|
|Bujnowska et al, 2011||Yes||Unclear||Unclear||Yes||No|
|Charpentier et al, 2011||Yes||Unclear||No||Yes||Yes|
|Kirkman et al, 1994 & Weinberger et al, 1995||Yes||Unclear||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Montori et al, 2004||Yes||Unclear||Unclear||Yes||Yes|
|Piette et al, 2000||Yes||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Piette et al,2001||Yes||Yes||Unclear||Yes||Yes|
|Ralston et al, 2009||Yes||Yes||Unclear||Yes||Yes|
|Rodriguez-Idígoras et al, 2009||Yes||Yes||No||Yes||Yes|
|Shea et al, 2006 & 2010||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Smith et al, 2008||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Stone et al, 2010||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Wakefiel et al, 2011||Yes||Yes||Unclear||Yes||Yes|
Association of intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes
Telemedicine strategies were associated with a significant absolute HbA1c reduction of -0.44% (-4.8 mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.61 to -0.26% [-6.7 to -2.8 mmol/mol]; p<0.001) when compared to the usual care (Figure 2). There was evidence of heterogeneity (I2 73%; p for heterogeneity <0.001; range of effects -1.10 to -0.10%).
Five studies (2889 patients) assessed the effect of telemedicine strategies on LDL-c. There was a significant reduction of 6.6 mg/dL (95% CI -8.3 to -4.9 mg/dL; p<0.001). There was no evidence of a significant heterogeneity (I2 24%; p value for heterogeneity 0.259) (Figure 3A).
Eight studies (3291 patients) assessed the effect on SBP, and 7 (2989 patients) assessed the effect on DBP. There was no significant effect of telemedicine strategies on SBP (effect size -1.6 mmHg; 95% CI -7.2 to 4.1 mmHg; p=0.585) and DBP (effect size -1.1 mmHg; 95% CI -3.0 to 0.8 mmHg; p=0.258) when compared to the usual care (Figures 3B and 3C). There was evidence of heterogeneity for both (SBP I2 94%, p for heterogeneity <0.001, range -7.67 to 7.50 mmHg; DBP I2 84%, p for heterogeneity <0.001, range -6.0 to 1.5 mmHg ).
Only 2 studies (397 patients) assessed the effect on BMI, therefore it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies demonstrated a non-significant reduction on BMI.
In sensitivity analyses, studies were individually omitted from the meta-analysis, and the effect size remained fairly the same (Table 4). Even when studies with extreme results and those with the biggest losses [10,22,26] were simultaneously omitted, there was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction (-0.44% vs. -0.56%, p=0.70).
|Study name||Statistics with study removed|
|Point||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Bond et al, 2007||-0,43||-0,62||-0,24|
|Bujnowska et al, 2011||-0,46||-0,64||-0,27|
|Charpentier et al, 2011||-0,37||-0,53||-0,21|
|Montori et al, 2004||-0,42||-0,60||-0,24|
|Piette et al, 2001||-0,46||-0,66||-0,27|
|Piette et al, 2000||-0,45||-0,64||-0,26|
|Ralston et al, 2009||-0,40||-0,58||-0,23|
|Rodriguez-Idígoras et al, 2000||-0,47||-0,66||-0,28|
|Shea et al, 2006||-0,48||-0,65||-0,30|
|Smith et al, 2008||-0,44||-0,63||-0,24|
|Stone et al, 2010||-0,40||-0,58||-0,23|
|Wakefiel et al, 2011||-0,46||-0,65||-0,26|
|Weinberger et al, 1995||-0,43||-0,61||-0,25|
|Original effect size||-0,44||-0,61||-0,26|
Subgroup analysis compared studies which included exclusively patients with diabetes type 1 (2 studies, 145 patients) vs. patients with diabetes type 2 (6 studies, 1180 patients) and demonstrated a higher HbA1c reduction in the first group: -0.86% (-9.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -1.12 to -0.59% [-12.2 to -6.4 mmol/mol]) vs. -0.44% (-4.8mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.74 to -0.15% [-8.1 to -1.6 mmol/mol]), p=0.039.
It was impossible to stratify patients regarding baseline HbA1c because patient-level analyses were not performed. Studies with an average baseline HbA1c equal to or higher than 8.0% [64.0 mmol/mol] were compared to the ones with an average lower than 8.0% and demonstrated a higher impact of telemedicine in the first group: -0.64% (7.0mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.93 to -0.35% [-10.2 to -3.8 mmol/mol]) vs. -0.26% (-2.8 mmol/mol) (-0.43 to -0.10% [-4.7 to -1.1 mmol/mol]), p=0.027.
Interventions which included changes in patient prescription through telemedicine (4 studies, 334 patients) were associated with a more pronounced HbA1c reduction than the ones which did not (7 studies, 3435 patients): -0.75% (-8.2 mmol/mol) (95% CI -1.05 to -0.43% [-11.5 to -4.7 mmo/mol]) vs. -0.30% (-3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.45 to -0.14% [-4.9 to -1.5 mmol/mol]), p=0.013.
Studies in which the intervention was made by physicians (3 studies, 847 patients) were compared to the ones in which it was made by nurses (9 studies, 3039 patients), and revealed no difference in HbA1c change: -0.53% (-5.8 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.94 to -0.13% [-10.3 to -1.4 mmol/mol]) vs. -0.43% (-4.7 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.64 to -0.22% [-7.0 to -2.4 mmol/mol]), p=0.654.
There was a tendency of a higher HbA1c reduction in interventions which lasted 6 months (6 studies, 741 patients) when compared to the ones that lasted at least one year (7 studies, 3466 patients; in only one study the follow-up was longer than one year): -0.57% (-6.2 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.85 to -0.30% [-9.3 to -3.3 mmol/mol]) vs. -0.30% (-3.3 mmol/mol) (-0.48 to -0.11% [-5.2 to -1.2 mmol/mol]), p=0.099.
Publication Bias Assessment
The subject impression of the funnel plot test suggested an asymmetry (Figure 2). Toward the bottom of the graph there are more studies on the left (indication a higher impact), which is consistent with the possibility that some studies are missing from the right. This visual impression was confirmed by Egger’s test, yielding a significant p-value (0.022). However, the fail-safe N for our pooled analysis is 273000, which is reassuring since it is very unlikely that there are over 1000 unpublished or undiscovered studies for every 1 study we found. Additionally, the trim-and-fill method revealed that publication bias did not interfere with the interpretation of results The method suggested that one study is missing, and the imputed effect size was -0.41% (95% CI -0.58 to -0.23%), which is similar to the original effect, suggesting that the apparent publication bias is insufficient to affect our results or interpretations in a meaningful way (Figure 4).
This systematic review (13 studies, 4207 patients) indicates that in diabetes patients, telemedicine strategies concomitant to the usual care are associated with a mean HbA1c decline of −0.44% (-4.8 mmol/mol) when compared to the usual care alone. HbA1c is recognized as a valuable indicator of treatment effectiveness in patients with diabetes , because it reflects average glycemia over several months and is strongly correlated with diabetes complications [2,14,15]. Additionally, our analyses demonstrate that there was no clinical relevant impact on LDL-c (an effect size of only 6.6 mg/dL) and no impact on blood pressure. It was impossible to perform a meta-analysis to assess the impact on BMI, but there is a tendency of its reduction with the use of telemedicine.
The lack of a clinical significant impact on LDL-c and the absence of impact on blood pressure should not be interpreted as a definite finding. Regarding hypertension, a recent RCT which included a large sample of hypertensive patients (7.3% of them had diabetes) who were willing to monitor their blood pressure and self-titrate medication has shown that self-management of hypertension in combination with telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements resulted in significant reduction in blood pressure in 6 and 12-month follow-up when compared to usual care . No study in the present meta-analysis included an intervention similar to that one. Therefore, the telemedicine strategy design might have not been appropriate to generate a significant impact on hypertension and LDL-c, and the intervention might be more effective in a motivated sample of patients, as was the case. This should be in mind when designing new studies to address these outcomes.
Our findings also demonstrated that the impact of telemedicine strategies in reducing HbA1c was more pronounced in diabetes type 1. Type 1 diabetes patients are unique in that they have absolute insulin deficiency and consequently the have more pronounced glycemic variability than type 2 diabetes patients [2,28]. Their management always involves insulin administration, whereas type 2 diabetes patients may be managed using lifestyle changes and oral hypoglycemic agents. These differences could influence the impact of individual’s self-management strategies and affect outcome measures . Additionally, type 2 diabetes is more common in older adults. Compared with younger adults, older adults report greater anxiety about using computers, lower use of technology and less confidence in their technological abilities  Therefore, some patients may have found difficulties in dealing with the telemedicine applications, for example, to upload blood glucose results to the website or to access online educational materials.
Interventions which included changes in patient prescription through telemedicine were associated with a greater benefit on HbA1c reduction than the ones which did not, and there was no difference regarding intervention made by physicians or nurses. These findings are important to address recommendations on telemedicine design strategies in clinical practice. The lack of difference between physicians and nurses impacts significantly in decreasing the costs of the intervention if applied to the healthcare system.
Another important finding was the tendency of a higher HbA1c reduction in interventions which lasted 6 months when compared to the ones that lasted at least one year. Although it did not reach statistical significance, it suggests a trend of decreasing intervention impact over time. This finding suggests that in clinical practice contact through telemedicine and positive motivation should be intensified over time, in order not to decrease the impact on glycemic control. Additionally, a more participatory design approach, involving target users in developing personalized interventions, might enhance persistence in usage and adherence to treatment .
This study was a rigorous systematic literature review that focused exclusively on RCTs in which telemedicine strategies included a personalized feedback from a healthcare practitioner to the patient or to other healthcare provider. Although only 5 studies had blinded assessment of outcomes, the outcomes were objective measures, with a low risk of bias in their assessment.
Previous systematic reviews with less methodological rigor have not performed meta-analysis or failed to detect a significant impact of different telemedicine strategies on glycemic control [6,26,30-32]. Methodological limitations may have biased the results, including inaccurate or incomplete indexing in the database, or a weak search strategy, leading to incomplete accounting of existing studies; limited or no assessment of study quality; and inclusion of weak studies. One systematic review demonstrated a significant decrease in HbA1c, but with a lower impact (effect size -0.22% [-2.4 mmol/mol]; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.08% [-3.8 to -0.9 mmol/mol]) . The inclusion of RCTs independent of study quality and the possibility of selection bias on observational studies may have influenced the results.
The evidence presented here could support the implementation of telemedicine in the care of diabetes patients. It has already been shown that telemedicine help improving patient care and access to specialized care, in particular in rural areas with limited accesses to health care facilities , and it is expected to facilitate a productive interaction between the patient and the health care provider in order to achieve improved treatment results and lower treatment costs . This review did not address the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Another systematic review, specific on teleconsultation, reported controversy about that, but cost-effectiveness was not measured uniformly among the various studies, and some of them were observational studies without a control group . This question is of utmost importance for decision makers and therefore should be addressed in further clinical trials.
In order to make these results applicable to clinical practice, it is also important to take into account that telemedicine may not be appropriate for all patients. There are some factors that are described as important elements for the success, such as awareness of the significance of the disease and its consequences, willing to participate actively in the treatment and in preventing complications and positive motivation . Patient computer skills and adherence to the technology are also important depending on the complexity of the telemedicine strategy .
The main limitation of this meta-analysis is the heterogeneity. To address this, we have performed analyses to identify clinical and methodological differences between studies. Some factors could not be addressed, as the type of telemedicine intervention, because it was too diverse among studies. As the analyses were not based on individual data, it was not possible to stratify according to the basal HbA1c, and it is expected a higher impact in individuals with poor metabolic control. The inclusion of patients with good metabolic control may have underestimated the impact of the intervention, so it could be expected an even better result if we could stratify by the baseline HbA1c levels. The subgroup analysis comparing studies with an average HA1c lower or higher than 8.0% (64.0 mmol/mol) is limited, because it is not possible to effectively separate individuals with better and worst metabolic control. However, as it demonstrated a significantly higher impact on HbA1c in the subgroup of studies with baseline HbA1c equal to or higher than 8.0%, it provides an estimative of a higher impact of the intervention in patients with worst metabolic control.
Although there was evidence of publication bias, trim-and-fill method revealed that publication bias did not interfere with the interpretation of results, as the imputed effect size was similar to the original effect, suggesting that the apparent publication bias is insufficient to affect our results or interpretations in a meaningful way.
It is important to note that the endpoint HbA1c has some limitations. As a mean, it may show normal results in individuals who alternate hypo and hyperglycemias . Besides this, it is necessary that laboratories use HbA1C assay methods certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) as traceable to the DCCT (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial) reference [38,39]. Finally, some clinical situations can lead to a HbA1C falsely high or falsely low, such as pregnancy, hemoglobinopathies, disorders of erythrocyte turnover, renal failure [37,40].
In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that telemedicine strategies combined with the usual care are associated with improved glycemic control in diabetic patients. In this review, there was no clinical relevant impact on LDL-c and blood pressure, and there was a tendency of BMI reduction in diabetes patients who used telemedicine, but the impact on these outcomes should be further explored in future trials.
A logical next step for future trials would thus be to assess whether the improved glycemic control observed with telemedicine interventions will translate into improved clinical outcomes. The optimal design of telemedicine systems is uncertain, so future research should also focus on what type of telemedicine intervention has the largest impact on diabetes management, and how to adapt systems to the individual patient needs and resources of specific health care systems. The evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention should also be addressed, which is relevant to decision makers and impacts on the applicability of the evidence in clinical practice.
Conceived and designed the experiments: MSM JXM MBMA EB ALR. Performed the experiments: MSM JXM. Analyzed the data: MSM JXM EB ALR MBMA. Wrote the manuscript: MSM JXM MBMA EB ALR.
- 1. Guariguata L, Whiting D, Weil C, Unwin N (2011) The International Diabetes Federation diabetes atlas methodology for estimating global and national prevalence of diabetes in adults. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 94: 322-332. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.040. PubMed: 22100977.
- 2. American Diabetes Association (2012) Standards of medical care in diabetes-2012. Diabetes Care 35 Suppl 1: S11-S63. doi:10.2337/dc12-s011. PubMed: 22187469.
- 3. Wakefield BJ, Holman JE, Ray A, Scherubel M, Adams MR et al. (2011) Effectiveness of home telehealth in comorbid diabetes and hypertension: a randomized, controlled trial. Telemed J E Health 17: 254-261. doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0176. PubMed: 21476945.
- 4. Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Puchała E, Steciwko A (2011) The impact of telehome care on health status and quality of life among patients with diabetes in a primary care setting in Poland. Telemed J E Health 17: 153-163. doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0113. PubMed: 21375410.
- 5. Ajay VS, Prabhakaran D (2011) The scope of cell phones in diabetes management in developing country health care settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol 5: 778-783. PubMed: 21722593.
- 6. Costa BM, Fitzgerald KJ, Jones KM, DunningAm T (2009) Effectiveness of IT-based diabetes management interventions: a review of the literature. BMC Fam Pract 10: 72. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-10-72. PubMed: 19917136.
- 7. European's Information Society (2012) uropean's Information Society Thematic Portal - Glossary of Terms 2012. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/glossary_of_terms/. Accessed 25 August 2012.
- 8. van den Berg N, Schumann M, Kraft K, Hoffmann W (2012) Telemedicine and telecare for older patients-A systematic review. Maturitas 73: 94-114. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.06.010. PubMed: 22809497.
- 9. Russell-Minda E, Jutai J, Speechley M, Bradley K, Chudyk A et al. (2009) Health technologies for monitoring and managing diabetes: a systematic review. J Diabetes Sci Technol 3: 1460-1471. PubMed: 20144402.
- 10. Shea S, Weinstock RS, Starren J, Teresi J, Palmas W, et al. (2006) 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 13: 40-51. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1917. PubMed: 16221935.
- 11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 6:e1000097.
- 12. Marcolino M, Ribeiro A, Maia J, Alkmim M, Boersma E (2012) Telediabetes in the care of diabetes patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO. Available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002779. Accessed 23 August 2012.
- 13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Med 6:e1000100. PubMed: 196315071962251219621070.
- 14. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993) The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. NEJM 329:977-986.
- 15. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews DR, Manley SE et al. (2000) Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ;321: 405-412. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405. PubMed: 10938048.
- 16. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. p. 421.
- 17. Sterne JA, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54: 1046-1055. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8. PubMed: 11576817.
- 18. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56: 455-463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x. PubMed: 10877304.
- 19. Rodríguez-Idígoras MI, Sepúlveda-Muñoz J, Sanchez-Garrido-Escudero R, Martínez-González JL, Escolar-Castelló JL, et al (2009) Telemedicine influence on the follow-up of type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Technol Ther 11: 431-437. doi:10.1089/dia.2008.0114. PubMed: 19580356.
- 20. Izquierdo R, Lagua CT, Meyer S, Ploutz-Snyder RJ, Palmas W et al. (2010) Telemedicine intervention effects on waist circumference and body mass index in the IDEATel project. Diabetes Technol Ther 12: 213-220. doi:10.1089/dia.2009.0102. PubMed: 20151772.
- 21. Stone RA, Rao RH, Sevick MA, Cheng C, Hough LJ et al. (2010) Active care management supported by home telemonitoring in veterans with type 2 diabetes: the DiaTel randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 33: 478-484. doi:10.2337/dc09-1012. PubMed: 20009091.
- 22. Ralston JD, Hirsch IB, Hoath J, Mullen M, Cheadle A et al. (2009) Web-based collaborative care for type 2 diabetes: a pilot randomized trial. Diabetes Care 32: 234-239. PubMed: 19017773.
- 23. Bond GE, Burr R, Wolf FM, Price M, McCurry SM et al. (2007) The effects of a web-based intervention on the physical outcomes associated with diabetes among adults age 60 and older: a randomized trial. Diabetes Technol Ther 9: 52-59. doi:10.1089/dia.2006.0057. PubMed: 17316098.
- 24. Piette JD, Weinberger M, McPhee SJ, Mah CA, Kraemer FB et al. (2000) Do automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? Am J Med 108: 20-27. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00291-0. PubMed: 11059437.
- 25. Piette JD, Weinberger M, Kraemer FB, McPhee SJ (2001) Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 24: 202-208. doi:10.2337/diacare.24.2.202. PubMed: 11213866.
- 26. Montori VM, Helgemoe PK, Guyatt GH, Dean DS, Leung TW et al. (2004) Telecare for patients with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 27: 1088-1094. doi:10.2337/diacare.27.5.1088. PubMed: 15111526.
- 27. McManus RJ, Mant J, Bray EP, Holder R, Jones MI et al. (2010) Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 376: 163-172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60964-6. PubMed: 20619448.
- 28. Kuenen JC, Borg R, Kuik DJ, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D et al. (2011) Does glucose variability influence the relationship between mean plasma glucose and HbA1c levels in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients? Diabetes Care 34: 1843-1847. doi:10.2337/dc10-2217. PubMed: 21700921.
- 29. Farmer A, Wade A, Goyder E, Yudkin P, French D et al. (2007) Impact of self monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated diabetes: open parallel group randomised trial. BMJ 335: 132. doi:10.1136/bmj.39247.447431.BE. PubMed: 17591623.
- 30. Verhoeven F, Tanja-Dijkstra K, Nijland N, Eysenbach G, van Gemert-Pijnen L (2010) Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Diabetes Sci Technol 4: 666-684. PubMed: 20513335.
- 31. Farmer A, Gibson OJ, Tarassenko L, Neil A (2005) A systematic review of telemedicine interventions to support blood glucose self-monitoring in diabetes. Diabet Med 22: 1372-1378. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01627.x. PubMed: 16176199.
- 32. Siriwardena LS, Wickramasinghe WA, Perera KL, Marasinghe RB, Katulanda P et al. (2012) A review of telemedicine interventions in diabetes care. J Telemed Telecare 18: 164-168. doi:10.1258/jtt.2012.SFT110. PubMed: 22362832.
- 33. Polisena J, Tran K, Cimon K, Hutton B, McGill S et al. (2009) Home telehealth for diabetes management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 11: 913-930. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2009.01057.x. PubMed: 19531058.
- 34. Alkmim MB, Figueira RM, Marcolino MS, Cardoso CS, Pena de Abreu M et al. (2012) Improving patient access to specialized health care: the Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Bull World Health Organ 90(5): 373-378. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.099408. PubMed: 22589571.
- 35. Klonoff D (2009) Using Telemedicine to Improve Outcomes in Diabetes? An Emerging Technology. J Diabetes Sci Technol 3: 624-628.
- 36. Azar M, Gabbay R (2009) Web-based management of diabetes through glucose uploads: has the time come for telemedicine? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 83: 9-17. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.055. PubMed: 19056140.
- 37. American Diabetes Association (2013) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes -2013. Diabetes Care 36: S11-S66. doi:10.2337/dc13-S011. PubMed: 23264422.
- 38. National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (2010). Retrieved onpublished at whilst December year 1111 from http://www.ngsp.org/. Accessed 15 August 2013.
- 39. Little RR, Rohlfing CL, Wiedmeyer HM, Myers GL, Sacks DB et al. (2001) The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP): a five-year progress report. Clin Chem 47: 1985–1992. PubMed: 11673367.
- 40. Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL et al. (2011) National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry. Position statement executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 34: 1419–1423. doi:10.2337/dc11-9997. PubMed: 21617111.