Dataset Information

Telehealth model versus in-person standard care for persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Increasing evidence indicates that the telehealth (TH) model is noninferior to the in-person approach regarding metabolic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and offers advantages such as a decrease in travel time and increased accessibility for shorter/frequent visits. The primary aim of this study was to compare the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at 6 months in T1D care in a rural area between TH and in-person visits.

Research design and methods

Randomized controlled, open-label, parallel-arm study among adults with T1D. Participants were submitted to in-person visits at baseline and at months 3 and 6 (conventional group) or teleconsultation in months 1 to 4 plus 2 in-person visits (baseline and 6 months) (TH group). Mixed effects models estimated differences in HbA_1c changes.

Results

Fifty-five participants were included (29 conventional/26 TH). No significant differences in HbA_1c between groups were found. Significant improvement in time in range (5.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-10.38; p < 0.05) and in time above range (-6.34, 95% CI: -12.13- -0.55;p < 0.05) in the TH group and an improvement in the Diabetes Quality of Life questionnaire (EsDQoL) score (-7.65, 95% CI: -14.67 - -0.63; p < 0.05) were observed. In TH, the costs for the participants were lower.

Conclusions

The TH model is comparable to in-person visits regarding HbA_1c levels at the 6-month follow-up, with significant improvement in some glucose metrics and health-related quality of life. Further studies are necessary to evaluate a more efficient timing of the TH visits.

SUBMITTER: Ballesta S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10333924 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Telehealth model versus in-person standard care for persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

Ballesta Sílvia S Chillarón Juan J JJ Inglada Yolanda Y Climent Elisenda E Llauradó Gemma G Pedro-Botet Juan J Cots Francesc F Camell Helena H Flores Juana A JA Benaiges David D

Frontiers in endocrinology 20230627

<h4>Objective</h4>Increasing evidence indicates that the telehealth (TH) model is noninferior to the in-person approach regarding metabolic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and offers advantages such as a decrease in travel time and increased accessibility for shorter/frequent visits. The primary aim of this study was to compare the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA<sub>1c</sub>) at 6 months in T1D care in a rural area between TH and in-person visits.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>Randomiz ...[more]

PMID: 37441496

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative patients with ostomies experience significant changes in their lives as a result of the device implantation. Self-care is important to improve their health outcomes. Telehealth provides an opportunity to expand access to self-care education.AimThis is a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a telehealth intervention to the standard in-person approach in improving self-care behaviors.Methods and analysisThree hundred and eighty-four patients aged ≥ 18 years, with a recently placed ostomy, no stomal/peristomal complications, and documented cognitive integrity will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a telehealth intervention (four remote educational sessions) or a standard educational approach (four in-person sessions) delivered in outpatient settings. Every session (remote and in-person) will occur on Days 25, 32, 40, and 60 after discharge. Follow-ups will occur 1, 3, and 6 months after the last intervention session. Primary outcome is self-care maintenance measured using the Ostomy Self-care Index (OSCI). Secondary outcomes include self-care monitoring, self-care management, self-efficacy (OSCI), quality of life (Stoma specific quality of Life), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), adjustment (Ostomy Adjustment Inventory-23), stomal and peristomal complication rates, healthcare services utilization, mobility, and number of working days lost. Analyses will be performed per intention-to-treat and per protocol.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the main center (registration number: 119/22). Following completion of the trial, dissemination meetings will be held to share the results of the study with the participants and the health-care team. Adoption of telehealth technologies for ostomy patients can improve service organization by ensuring better integration and continuity of care. If the remote intervention produces comparable effects to the in-person intervention, it would be wise to make telehealth education an alternative treatment for addressing the educational needs of uncomplicated postoperative ostomy patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (identifier number: NCT05796544).

Project description:BackgroundIntradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection is an effective advanced treatment for overactive bladder. While the effective dosages have been well studied, very little data exist on treatment efficacy using differing injection techniques. The objective of this study was to determine whether the efficacy of a reduced injection technique of 5 injection sites was noninferior to the standard technique of 20 injection sites of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of overactive bladder.MethodsIn this randomized noninferiority trial, men and women seeking treatment of overactive bladder with intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections were randomized to receive 100 units administered via either a reduced injection technique of 5 injection sites or a standard injection technique of 20 injection sites. Subjects completed a series of standardized questionnaires at baseline and at 4-12 weeks postprocedure to determine symptom severity and treatment efficacy. The primary outcome was treatment efficacy as determined by Overactive Bladder Questionnaire-Short Form with a noninferiority margin of 15 points. Secondary outcomes were incidence of urinary tract infection and urinary retention requiring catheterization.ResultsData from 77 subjects were available for analysis with 39 in the control arm (20 injections) and 38 in the study arm (5 injections). There was a significant improvement in both arms from baseline to follow-up in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire-Short Form and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire scores (p < 0.001). Overall treatment success was 68% with no statistically significant difference between arms. A significant difference between arms was found on the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire-Short Form quality of life survey favoring the control arm (confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-20.5, p = 0.04). However, there were no significant differences between arms in the remaining validated questionnaires. The study arm did not demonstrate noninferiority to the control arm. Subjects in the study arm were significantly more likely to express a willingness to undergo the procedure again (odds ratio = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.42-10.67, p = 0.004). Adverse events did not differ between arms.ConclusionsA reduced injection technique for administration of intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrates similar efficacy to the standard injection technique but did not demonstrate noninferiority. Subjects preferred the reduced injection technique over the standard technique. A reduced injection technique is a safe and effective alternative to the standard technique.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing evidence suggesting that open-label placebo (OLP) is an effective treatment for several medical conditions defined by self-report. However, little is known about patients' experiences with OLP, and no studies have directly compared patients' experiences in double-blind placebo (DBP) conditions.MethodsThis study was nested in a large randomized-controlled trial comparing the effects of OLP and DBP treatments in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We randomly selected 33 participants for interviews concerning their experiences in the parent trial. The data were qualitatively analyzed using an iterative immersion/crystallization approach. We then compared the qualitative interview data to the quantitative IBS severity data assessed during the parent trial, using a mixed methods approach.ResultsTwo prominent interview themes were identified: (1) the participants' feelings about their treatment allocation and (2) their reflections about the treatment. Both OLP and DBP participants mentioned hope and curiosity as major feelings driving them to engage with their treatment. However, while DBP participants tended to be more enthusiastic about their allocation, OLP participants were more ambivalent. Furthermore, OLP participants reflected more on their treatment, often involving noticeable cognitive and emotional processes of self-reflection. They offered a variety of explanations for their symptom improvement and were significantly less likely to attribute it to the treatment itself than DBP participants (Χ2 [3] = 8.28; p = .041). Similarly, the participants' retrospective narratives of symptom improvement were significantly correlated with their corresponding quantitative IBS severity scores only in DBP (p's ≤ .006) but not in OLP (p's ≥ .637).ConclusionOLP and DBP participants share feelings of hope, uncertainty and curiosity but differ in the extent of conscious reflection. The counter-intuitive OLP prompts more self-examination, ambivalent feelings and active engagement compared to DBP. At the same time, OLP participants are more reluctant to attribute symptom improvement to their treatment. Our findings substantially add to the emerging picture of factors that distinguish OLP and DBP and their potential mechanisms.

Project description:BackgroundSame-day HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation is being widely implemented. However, the optimal timing of ART among patients with tuberculosis (TB) symptoms is unknown. We hypothesized that same-day treatment (TB treatment for those diagnosed with TB; ART for those not diagnosed with TB) would be superior to standard care in this population.Methods and findingsWe conducted an open-label trial among adults with TB symptoms at initial HIV diagnosis at GHESKIO in Haiti; participants were recruited and randomized on the same day. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to same-day treatment (same-day TB testing with same-day TB treatment if TB diagnosed; same-day ART if TB not diagnosed) versus standard care (initiating TB treatment within 7 days and delaying ART to day 7 if TB not diagnosed). In both groups, ART was initiated 2 weeks after TB treatment. The primary outcome was retention in care with 48-week HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL, with intention to treat (ITT) analysis. From November 6, 2017 to January 16, 2020, 500 participants were randomized (250/group); the final study visit occurred on March 1, 2021. Baseline TB was diagnosed in 40 (16.0%) in the standard and 48 (19.2%) in the same-day group; all initiated TB treatment. In the standard group, 245 (98.0%) initiated ART at median of 9 days; 6 (2.4%) died, 15 (6.0%) missed the 48-week visit, and 229 (91.6%) attended the 48-week visit. Among all who were randomized, 220 (88.0%) received 48-week HIV-1 RNA testing; 168 had <200 copies/mL (among randomized: 67.2%; among tested: 76.4%). In the same-day group, 249 (99.6%) initiated ART at median of 0 days; 9 (3.6%) died, 23 (9.2%) missed the 48-week visit, and 218 (87.2%) attended the 48-week visit. Among all who were randomized, 211 (84.4%) received 48-week HIV-1 RNA; 152 had <200 copies/mL (among randomized: 60.8%; among tested: 72.0%). There was no difference between groups in the primary outcome (60.8% versus 67.2%; risk difference: -0.06; 95% CI [-0.15, 0.02]; p = 0.14). Two new grade 3 or 4 events were reported per group; none were judged to be related to the intervention. The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted at a single urban clinic, and the generalizability to other settings is uncertain.ConclusionsIn patients with TB symptoms at HIV diagnosis, we found that same-day treatment was not associated with superior retention and viral suppression. In this study, a short delay in ART initiation did not appear to compromise outcomes.Trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03154320.

Project description:BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationIn patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Dataset Information

Telehealth model versus in-person standard care for persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

Objective

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Telehealth model versus in-person standard care for persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets