The impact of supported telemetric monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes prevalence is increasing and current methods of management are unsustainable. Effective approaches to supporting self-management are required. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to establish whether supported telemetric monitoring of glycemic control and blood pressure results in reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c; the primary outcome of a measure of long-term glycemic control) and secondary outcomes of blood pressure and weight among people with poorly controlled diabetes compared to a control group receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: Design: multi-center, randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Setting: primary care in Lothian, Kent, Glasgow and Borders regions in the UK. Participants: people with type 2 diabetes and confirmed HbA1c>7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Intervention/comparison: randomization to intervention or control groups will be performed by the Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit. Participants in the intervention group will be shown how to use blood glucose and blood pressure monitors and weighing scales which use Bluetooth wireless technology to transmit readings via modem to a remote server. These participants will be asked to provide at least twice weekly measurements of morning and evening blood glucose and weekly measurements of weight and blood pressure. Measurements will be checked at least weekly by practice nurses who will contact the patients to adjust therapy according to guidelines and reinforce lifestyle advice. Participants in the control group will receive usual care. All participants will receive an individual education session. Follow-up: measurements will be performed at practices 9 months after randomization by research nurses blinded to allocation. The primary outcome measure is HbA1c and secondary outcomes measure are daytime systolic and diastolic blood pressure, weight and cost per quality-adjusted life year. Analysis: intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. The sample size of 320 participants allows for 20% drop-out and has 80% power at 5% significance to detect a 0.5% absolute (6 mmol/mol) fall in HbA1c in the intervention group. The qualitative study will explore the experiences of patients and professionals using the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number ISRCTN71674628.

Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of managing patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) using telemonitoring versus usual care from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: Within trial post hoc economic evaluation of data from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach. SETTING: 20 socioeconomically diverse general practices in Lothian, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 401 primary care patients aged 29-95 with uncontrolled daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (≥135/85, but <210/135 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Participants were centrally randomised to 6 months of a telemonitoring service comprising of self-monitoring of BP transmitted to a secure website for review by the attending nurse/doctor and patient, with optional automated patient decision-support by text/email (n=200) or usual care (n-201). Randomisation was undertaken with minimisation for age, sex, family practice, use of three or more hypertension drugs and self-monitoring history. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean difference in total NHS costs between trial arms and blinded assessment of mean cost per 1 mm Hg systolic BP point reduced. RESULTS: Home telemonitoring of BP costs significantly more than usual care (mean difference per patient £115.32 (95% CI £83.49 to £146.63; p<0.001)). Increased costs were due to telemonitoring service costs, patient training and additional general practitioner and nurse consultations. The mean cost of systolic BP reduction was £25.56/mm Hg (95% CI £16.06 to £46.89) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Over the 6-month trial period, supported telemonitoring was more effective at reducing BP than usual care but also more expensive. If clinical gains are maintained, these additional costs would be very likely to be compensated for by reductions in the cost of future cardiovascular events. Longer-term modelling of costs and outcomes is required to fully examine the cost-effectiveness implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72614272.

Telemonitoring based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension: multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if an intervention consisting of telemonitoring and supervision by usual primary care clinicians of home self measured blood pressure and optional patient decision support leads to clinically important reductions in daytime systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 20 primary care practices in south east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 401 people aged 29-95 years with uncontrolled blood pressure (mean daytime ambulatory measurement ≥ 135/85 mm Hg but ≤ 210/135 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Self measurement and transmission of blood pressure readings to a secure website for review by the attending nurse or doctor and participant, with optional automated patient decision support by text or email for six months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded assessment of mean daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure six months after randomisation. RESULTS: 200 participants were randomised to the intervention and 201 to usual care; primary outcome data were available for 90% of participants (182 and 177, respectively). The mean difference in daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure adjusted for baseline and minimisation factors between intervention and usual care was 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5; P=0.0002) and for daytime diastolic ambulatory blood pressure was 2.3 mm Hg (0.9 to 3.6; P=0.001), with higher values in the usual care group. The intervention was associated with a mean increase of one general practitioner (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.6; P=0.0002) and 0.6 (0.1 to 1.0; P=0.01) practice nurse consultations during the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Supported self monitoring by telemonitoring is an effective method for achieving clinically important reductions in blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings. However, it was associated with increase in use of National Health Service resources. Further research is required to determine if the reduction in blood pressure is maintained in the longer term and if the intervention is cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72614272.