Substitution of telemedicine for clinic visit during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020: Comparison of telemedicine and clinic visit.
Substitution of telemedicine for clinic visit during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020: Comparison of telemedicine and clinic visit.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jdi.13826
复制
发表时间：
2022-09
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Kasuga, Masato
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Onishi, Yukiko;Ichihashi, Rieko;Yoshida, Yoko;Tahara, Tazu;Kikuchi, Takako;Kobori, Toshiko;Kubota, Tetsuya;Iwamoto, Masahiko;Hamano, Shoko;Kasuga, Masato
这项回顾性观察性队列研究的目的是比较2020年和2019年冠状病毒病2019年大流行期间的门诊糖尿病护理和糖化血红蛋白（HbA 1c）水平，并比较2020年4月7日至5月25日（间歇期）日本宣布紧急状态期间远程医疗和门诊访视的降糖效果。将间期前后共13周分别指定为前期和后期。于前期及后期进行诊所访视的研究参与者人数于2020年为3，333人，于2019年为3，608人。对血糖控制不佳（HbA 1c ≥7%）的糖尿病患者进行倾向评分匹配，比较2020年远程医疗和门诊就诊对糖尿病控制的效果。主要结局为阶段后HbA 1c。2020年和2019年的主要区别是2020年远程医疗的使用。在调整年龄、性别、糖尿病类型、前期HbA 1c和前期体重指数后，2020年后期HbA 1c评估的血糖控制显著差于2019年。在倾向评分匹配的618对患者中，门诊访视组的后期HbA 1c显著优于远程医疗组（7.5% vs 7.4%，P = 0.023）。二零二零年的草甘膦控制较二零一九年轻微但显著恶化。尽管远程医疗在2020年的2019冠状病毒病大流行期间显著改善了血糖控制，但诊所就诊对HbA 1c的改善更为显著。在紧急情况下，用远程医疗取代门诊似乎是一个可行的选择，但在可能的情况下，门诊可能是一个更好的选择。二零二零年的草甘膦控制较二零一九年略差。尽管远程医疗在2020年COVID-19大流行期间显著改善了血糖控制，但诊所就诊对HbA 1c的改善更为显著。这种差异是否具有临床意义尚不确定，尽管在可能的情况下诊所就诊可能是更好的选择，但远程医疗替代诊所就诊似乎是一种可行的选择。
The purpose of this retrospective observational cohort study was to compare outpatient diabetes care and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in 2020 with 2019, and to compare the glucose‐lowering effect of telemedicine and clinic visits during the state of emergency in Japan declared from 7 April to 25 May (inter‐period) 2020. A total of 13 weeks before and after the inter‐period were designated as the pre‐period and post‐period, respectively. The number of study participants who had clinic visits during the pre‐period and the post‐period were 3,333 in 2020 and 3,608 in 2019. Propensity score matching was carried out to compare the effect of telemedicine and clinic visits on diabetes control in 2020 among diabetes patients with insufficient glucose control (HbA1c ≥7%). The primary outcome was post‐period HbA1c. The major difference between 2020 and 2019 was the use of telemedicine in 2020. After adjustment for age, sex, diabetes type, pre‐period HbA1c and pre‐period body mass index, glycemic control evaluated by HbA1c was significantly worse in the post‐period of 2020 than 2019. In the propensity score‐matched 618 pairs, the clinic visit group had significantly better post‐period HbA1c than the telemedicine group (7.5% vs 7.4%, P = 0.023). Glycemic control was slightly, but significantly, worse in 2020 than 2019. Although telemedicine significantly improved glycemic control during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in 2020, clinic visits improved HbA1c significantly more. The substitution of telemedicine for clinic visits appears to be a viable option under emergency conditions, but clinic visits might be a better option when possible. Glycemic control was slightly worse in 2020 than 2019. Although telemedicine significantly improved glycemic control during the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020, clinic visit improved HbA1c significantly more. Whether this difference is clinically significant is uncertain and although clinic visit may be a better option when possible, substitution of telemedicine for clinic visit appears to be a viable option.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Park SD;Kim SW;Moon JS;Lee YY;Cho NH;Lee JH;Jeon JH;Choi YK;Kim MK;Park KG
通讯作者：
Park KG
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Tanaka N;Hamamoto Y;Kurotobi Y;Yamasaki Y;Nakatani S;Matsubara M;Haraguchi T;Yamaguchi Y;Izumi K;Fujita Y;Kuwata H;Hyo T;Yamada Y;Kurose T;Seino Y
通讯作者：
Seino Y
影响因子：
2
作者：
Austin, Peter C.
通讯作者：
Austin, Peter C.
DOI：
10.1002/jac5.1494
发表时间：
2021-07-11
期刊：
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
影响因子：
--
作者：
Thomas, Ashley M.;Baker, Jennifer W.;Lamb, Kristen
通讯作者：
Lamb, Kristen
影响因子：
--
作者：
Morrison, Fritha;Shubina, Maria;Turchin, Alexander
通讯作者：
Turchin, Alexander