Long-term effects of a telemedically-assisted lifestyle intervention on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – A two-armed randomised controlled trial in Germany
Annalena Dunkel, Katja von Storch, Martin Hochheim, Susanne Zank, M. Cristina Polidori, Christiane Woopen
{"title":"Long-term effects of a telemedically-assisted lifestyle intervention on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – A two-armed randomised controlled trial in Germany","authors":"Annalena Dunkel, Katja von Storch, Martin Hochheim, Susanne Zank, M. Cristina Polidori, Christiane Woopen","doi":"10.1007/s40200-023-01290-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose Diabetes is considered one of the fastest growing diseases worldwide. Especially in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, lifestyle interventions have proven to be effective. However, long-term studies in real-world contexts are rare, which is why further research is needed. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether effects achieved in the context of a long-term lifestyle intervention can be sustained by patients in the long term. Methods In a two-arm randomized trial we compared diabetes care as usual to a lifestyle intervention combining telemedically support and individual needs-based telephone coaching. The study included 151 patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to either the intervention or control group. Intervention Group (IG; N = 86, 80.2% male, mean age: 59.7) received telemedical devices and telephone coaching over a period of 12 months, Control Group (CG; N = 65, 83.1% male, mean age: 58,8) received care as usual. The primary outcome was chance in Hb A1c . A follow-up survey was conducted after 24 months. Results The intervention group showed significantly better HbA1c- values compared to the control group at both 12 and 24 months (12 M: − 0.52 (-0.73; − 0.32), p < .000; 24 M: − 0.38 (-0.61; − 0.15), p = .001). The strongest change was seen in the first three months, with the best value obtained at 6 months and stable thereafter. Conclusion Combined telephone coaching with telemedicine support could lead to better long-term glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. In the future, more long-term studies should be conducted in real-world settings and lifestyle interventions should be offered more widely.","PeriodicalId":15604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders","volume":"2 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-023-01290-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Diabetes is considered one of the fastest growing diseases worldwide. Especially in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, lifestyle interventions have proven to be effective. However, long-term studies in real-world contexts are rare, which is why further research is needed. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether effects achieved in the context of a long-term lifestyle intervention can be sustained by patients in the long term. Methods In a two-arm randomized trial we compared diabetes care as usual to a lifestyle intervention combining telemedically support and individual needs-based telephone coaching. The study included 151 patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to either the intervention or control group. Intervention Group (IG; N = 86, 80.2% male, mean age: 59.7) received telemedical devices and telephone coaching over a period of 12 months, Control Group (CG; N = 65, 83.1% male, mean age: 58,8) received care as usual. The primary outcome was chance in Hb A1c . A follow-up survey was conducted after 24 months. Results The intervention group showed significantly better HbA1c- values compared to the control group at both 12 and 24 months (12 M: − 0.52 (-0.73; − 0.32), p < .000; 24 M: − 0.38 (-0.61; − 0.15), p = .001). The strongest change was seen in the first three months, with the best value obtained at 6 months and stable thereafter. Conclusion Combined telephone coaching with telemedicine support could lead to better long-term glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. In the future, more long-term studies should be conducted in real-world settings and lifestyle interventions should be offered more widely.