RESUMEN
Digital health technologies (DHTs) at the intersection of health, medical informatics, and business aim to enhance patient care through personalised digital approaches. Ensuring the efficacy and reliability of these innovations demands rigorous clinical validation. A PubMed literature review (January 2006 to July 2023) identified 1250 papers, highlighting growing academic interest. A focused narrative review (January 2018 to July 2023) delved into challenges, highlighting issues such as diverse regulatory landscapes, adoption issues in complex healthcare systems, and a plethora of evaluation frameworks lacking pragmatic guidance. Existing frameworks often omit crucial criteria, neglect empirical evidence, and clinical effectiveness is rarely included as a criterion for DHT quality. The paper underscores the urgency of addressing challenges in accreditation, adoption, business models, and integration to safeguard the quality, efficacy, and safety of DHTs. A pivotal illustration of collaborative efforts to address these challenges is exemplified by the Digital Health Validation Center, dedicated to generating clinical evidence of innovative healthcare technologies and facilitating seamless technology transfer. In conclusion, it is necessary to harmonise evaluation approaches and frameworks, improve regulatory clarity, and commit to collaboration to integrate rigorous clinical validation and empirical evidence throughout the DHT life cycle.
RESUMEN
AIM: We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multicomponent healthcare intervention, primarily designed to improve glycemic control, on blood pressure and lipids in individuals with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Catalonian primary care setting METHODS: A cluster, non-randomized, controlled pragmatic trial was conducted across 11 primary care centers. The intervention group (N=225) received a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, including a dedicated monographic consultation to address therapeutic inertia. The control group (N=181) mirrored the intervention group but lacked the monographic consultation. Secondary endpoints included lipid and blood pressure control assessed at baseline and after a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: 245 participants completed the study over 12 months. We found no differences in the reduction of lipid laboratory parameters between the groups at the final visit. However, no significant differences were found between the groups for other lipids or the proportion of participants achieving lipid target values. Likewise, no differences were noted between the groups for blood pressure, its target control, and treatment at the final visit. Various clinical factors such as age, sex, diabetes duration, HbA1c levels, BMI, and macrovascular complications among the participants were associated with achieving lipid and blood pressure targets at the final visit. CONCLUSION: The pragmatic multicomponent intervention proposed in the INTEGRA study, showed that including a component designed to reduce clinical inertia in the management of glycemia did not demonstrate benefits in improving lipids and blood pressure in patients with poorly controlled T2DM.
