Clinical Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of 42 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background:Telemedicine is instrumental in improving diabetes patient care, as well as providing significant cost benefits. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of telemedicine intervention with usual care in diabetes patients.Methods:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting a change in HbA1c after usual care and telemedicine intervention were retrieved from electronic databases.Results:Data on 6,170 participants (mean age 13.3 to 71.0 years), with 3,128 randomized to usual care and 3,042 to telemedicine intervention, were retrieved from 42 RCTs. Eight studies used teleconsultation, while 34 used telemonitoring (device based). Nine studies enrolled both type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients, 21 focused on type 2 diabetes patients, and 12 on type 1 diabetes patients. The mean reduction in HbA1c was significantly higher in the telemedicine groups (Hedges' g = -0.37, p < 0.001). Type 2 diabetes patients experienced a higher reduction in HbA1c compared to type 1 diabetes patients (Hedges' g = -0.48, p < 0.001 vs. -0.26, p < 0.05; Q = 1935.75, p < 0.0001). Older patients (41-50 years, Hedges' g = -1.82, p < 0.001; >50 years, Hedges' g = -1.05, p < 0.001) benefited more than their younger counterparts (Hedges' g = -0.84, p = 0.07). Telemedicine programs lasting >6 months produced a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c levels (Hedges' g = -2.24 vs. -0.66, p < 0.001).Conclusion:Telemedicine interventions are more effective than usual care in managing diabetes, especially type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, older patients and a longer duration of intervention provide superior results.

Cost of diabetic foot in France, Spain, Italy, Germany and United Kingdom: A systematic review.

AIM: Cost estimates for diabetic foot are available for developed countries based on cost data for different years. This study aimed to provide a comparison of the cost of diabetic foot in E5 (France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom) and its characteristics across different conditions. METHODS: PubMed, Central and Embase databases were searched in February 2017 for English language publications. Bibliographies of relevant papers were also searched manually. Reviews and research papers from E5 regions reporting on cost of diabetic foot were included. Reported cost was converted to equivalent 2016 $ for comparison purposes. All the costs presented are mean cost per patient per year in 2016 $. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the analysis. The total cost of amputation ranged from $ 15,046 in 2001 to $ 38,621 in 2005. The direct cost of amputation ranged from $ 13,842 in 2001 to $ 83,728 during 2005-2009. Indirect cost of amputation was more uniform, ranging from between $ 1,043 to $ 1,442. The direct cost of gangrene ranged from $ 3,352 in 2003 to $ 8,818 in Germany. Although, for the same year, 2003, the cost for Spain was almost double that for Germany. The total cost of an uninfected ulcer was $ 6,174 in 2002, but increased to $ 14,441 in 2005; for an infected ulcer the cost increased from $ 2,637 to $ 2,957. The different countries showed variations in the components used to calculate the cost of diabetic foot. CONCLUSIONS: The E5 incurs a heavy cost from diabetic foot and its complications. There is an unmet need for the identification of cost-cutting strategies, as diabetic foot costs more than major cardiac diseases.