Abstract
Objective To develop and scale algorithm-enabled patient prioritization to improve population-level management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a pediatric clinic with fixed resources, using telemedicine and remote monitoring of patients via continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data review.
Research Design and Methods We adapted consensus glucose targets for T1D patients using CGM to identify interpretable clinical criteria to prioritize patients for weekly provider review. The criteria were constructed to manage the number of patients reviewed weekly and identify patients who most needed provider contact. We developed an interactive dashboard to display CGM data relevant for the patients prioritized for review.
Results The introduction of the new criteria and interactive dashboard was associated with a 60% reduction in the mean time spent by diabetes team members who remotely and asynchronously reviewed patient data and contacted patients, from 3.2±0.20 to 1.3±0.24 minutes per patient per week. Given fixed resources for review, this corresponded to an estimated 147% increase in weekly clinic capacity. Patients who qualified for and received remote review (n=58) have associated 8.8 percentage points (pp) (95% CI = 0.6–16.9pp) greater time-in-range (70-180 mg/dL) glucoses compared to 25 control patients who did not qualify at twelve months after T1D onset.
Conclusions An algorithm-enabled prioritization of T1D patients with CGM for asynchronous remote review reduced provider time spent per patient and was associated with improved time-in-range.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr Maahs has had research support from the NIH, JDRF, NSF, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. Dr Maahs has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, and Dompe. None of the other authors have competing interests to declare.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by R18DK122422 and P30DK116074.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Stanford University IRB: IRB-48935, IRB-49192, IRB-52812, IRB-56451
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Served as co-senior authors
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
↵1 Croissant Y, Millo G (2008). “Panel Data Econometrics in R: The plm Package.” Journal of Statistical Software, 27(2), 1–43. doi: 10.18637/jss.v027.i02.
↵2 Swamy and Arora 1972
↵3 Wager S, Athey S. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2018 Jul 3;113(523):1228-42.
Data Availability
Some of the summary data are available at request from the corresponding author. The raw patient data is protected by privacy laws and cannot be shared.
