Comparison of Glycemic Control Between In-Person and Virtual Diabetes Consults in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: There is limited evidence that the diabetes in-person consult in hospitalized patients can be replaced by a virtual consult. During COVID-19 pandemic, the diabetes in-person consult service at the University of Miami and Miami Veterans Affairs Healthcare System transitioned to a virtual model. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of telemedicine on glycemic control after this transition. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed glucose metrics from in-person consults (In-person) during January 16 to March 14, 2020 and virtual consults during March 15 to May 14, 2020. Data from virtual consults were analyzed by separating patients infected with COVID-19, who were seen only virtually (Virtual-COVID-19-Pos), and patients who were not infected (Virtual-COVID-19-Neg), or by combining the two groups (Virtual-All). Results: Patient-day–weighted blood glucose was not significantly different between In-person, Virtual-All, and Virtual-COVID-19-Neg, but Virtual-COVID-19-Pos had significantly higher mean ± SD blood glucose (mg/dL) compared with others (206.7 ± 49.6 In-person, 214.6 ± 56.2 Virtual-All, 206.5 ± 57.2 Virtual-COVID-19-Neg, 229.7 ± 51.6 Virtual-COVID-19-Pos; P = .015). A significantly less percentage of patients in this group also achieved a mean ± SD glucose target of 140 to 180 mg/dL (23.8 ± 22.5 In-person, 21.5 ± 20.5 Virtual-All, 25.3 ± 20.8 Virtual-COVID-19-Neg, and 14.4±18.1 Virtual-COVID-19-Pos, P = .024), but there was no significant difference between In-person, Virtual-All, and Virtual-COVID-19-Neg. The occurrence of hypoglycemia was not significantly different among groups. Conclusions: In-person and virtual consults delivered by a diabetes team at an academic institution were not associated with significant differences in glycemic control. These real-world data suggest that telemedicine could be used for in-patient diabetes management, although additional studies are needed to better assess clinical outcomes and safety.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.