Dataset Information

Design of a randomized, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the reliability of videoconferencing for remote consultation of diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An estimated 366 million people are living with diabetes worldwide and it is predicted that its prevalence will increase to 552 million by 2030. Management of this disease and its complications is a challenge for many countries. Optimal glycaemic control is necessary to minimize complications, but less than 70% of diabetic patients achieve target levels of blood glucose, partly due to poor access to qualified health care providers. Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to health care, especially for rural and remote residents. Video teleconsultation, a real-time (or synchronous) mode of telemedicine, is gaining more popularity around the world through recent improvements in digital telecommunications. If video consultation is to be offered as an alternative to face-to-face consultation in diabetes assessment and management, then it is important to demonstrate that this can be achieved without loss of clinical fidelity. This paper describes the protocol of a randomised controlled trail for assessing the reliability of remote video consultation for people with diabetes.

Methods/design

A total of 160 people with diabetes will be randomised into either a Telemedicine or a Reference group. Participants in the Reference group will receive two sequential face-to-face consultations whereas in the Telemedicine group one consultation will be conducted face-to-face and the other via videoconference. The primary outcome measure will be a change in the patient's medication. Secondary outcome measures will be findings in physical examination, detecting complications, and patient satisfaction. A difference of less than 20% in the aggregated level of agreement between the two study groups will be used to identify if videoconference is non-inferior to traditional mode of clinical care (face-to-face).

Discussion

Despite rapid growth in application of telemedicine in a variety of medical specialties, little is known about the reliability of videoconferencing for remote consultation of people with diabetes. Results of this proposed study will provide evidence of the reliability of specialist consultation offered by videoconference for people with diabetes.

Trial registration number

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000315819.

SUBMITTER: Fatehi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3925960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, legislations are being modified around the world to allow patients to receive mental health services through telehealth. Unfortunately, there are no large clinical trial available to reliably document the efficacy of delivering videoconferencing psychotherapy (VCP) for people with panic disorder and agoraphobia (PDA) and whether basic psychotherapeutic processes are altered.MethodsThis 2-arm intent-to-treat non-inferiority study reports on a clinical trial on VCP and documents how therapeutic working alliance and motivation toward psychotherapy are associated to treatment outcome. We hypothesized that VCP would not be inferior to standard face-to-face (FF) cognitive behavior therapy for PDA. No specific hypothesis was stated to address working alliance and treatment mechanisms. VCP was compared to a gold-standard psychotherapy treatment for PDA, which was delivered either in person or in videoconference, with a strict tolerance criterion of about 2 points on the primary outcome measure. Seventy one adult patients were recruited. Measures of working alliance were collected after the first, fifth, and last session. Motivation toward therapy at pre-treatment and working alliance after the fifth therapy session were used as predictors of treatment outcome and compared with change in dysfunctional beliefs toward bodily sensations.ResultsPanic disorder, agoraphobia, fear of sensations and depressed mood all showed significant improvements and large effect-sizes from pre to post-treatment. Gains were maintained at follow-up. No significant differences were found between VCP and FF, and effect sizes were trivial for three of the four outcome measures. Non-inferiority tests confirmed that VCP was no less effective than FF therapy on the primary outcome measure and two of the three secondary outcome measures. Working alliance was very strong in VCP and did not statistically differ from FF. Working alliance and motivation did not predict treatment outcome, which was significantly predicted by the reduction in dysfunctional beliefs. The strength of the therapeutic bond was correlated with change in dysfunctional beliefs.ConclusionMental health professionals can use VCP to provide services to patients with PDA. Building and maintaining a sound working alliance should not be a source concern. Practical recommendations are formulated.Isrctn trial registration numberISRCTN76456442.

Project description:Background/aims Non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes are becoming increasingly common. Designing non-inferiority trials is challenging, in particular, they require very large sample sizes. We hypothesized that the difference in restricted mean survival time, an alternative to the hazard ratio, could lead to smaller required sample sizes. Methods We show how to convert a margin for the hazard ratio into a margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time and how to calculate the required sample size under a Weibull survival distribution. We systematically selected non-inferiority trials published between 2013 and 2016 in seven major journals. Based on the protocol and article of each trial, we determined the clinically relevant time horizon of interest. We reconstructed individual patient data for the primary outcome and fit a Weibull distribution to the comparator arm. We converted the margin for the hazard ratio into the margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time. We tested for non-inferiority using the difference in restricted mean survival time and hazard ratio. We determined the required sample size based on both measures, using the type I error risk and power from the original trial design. Results We included 35 trials. We found evidence of non-proportional hazards in five (14%) trials. The hazard ratio and the difference in restricted mean survival time were consistent regarding non-inferiority testing, except in one trial where the difference in restricted mean survival time led to evidence of non-inferiority while the hazard ratio did not. The median hazard ratio margin was 1.43 (Q1-Q3, 1.29-1.75). The median of the corresponding margins for the difference in restricted mean survival time was -21?days (Q1-Q3, -36 to -8) for a median time horizon of 2.0?years (Q1-Q3, 1-3?years). The required sample size according to the difference in restricted mean survival time was smaller in 71% of trials, with a median relative decrease of 8.5% (Q1-Q3, 0.4%-38.0%). Across all 35 trials, about 25,000 participants would have been spared from enrollment using the difference in restricted mean survival time compared to hazard ratio for trial design. Conclusion The margins for the hazard ratio may seem large but translate to relatively small differences in restricted mean survival time. The difference in restricted mean survival time offers meaningful interpretation and can result in considerable reductions in sample size. Restricted mean survival time-based measures should be considered more widely in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere is lack of ideal and comprehensive economic evaluations of various GDM strategies. The aim of this study is to the compare efficacy and cost-effectiveness of five different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).MethodsThis study is a randomized community non-inferiority trial among 30,000 pregnant women in five different geographic regions of Iran, who were randomly assigned to one of the five GDM screening methods. All first trimester pregnant women, seeking prenatal care in governmental health care systems, who met our eligibility criteria were enrolled. The criteria suggested by the International-Association-of-Diabetes-in-Pregnancy-Study-Group, the most intensive approach, were used as reference. We used the non-inferiority approach to compare less intensive strategies to the reference one. Along with routine prenatal standard care, all participants were scheduled to have two phases of GDM screening in first and second-trimester of pregnancy, based on five different pre-specified protocols. The screening protocol included fasting plasma glucose in the first trimester and either a one step or a two-step screening method in the second trimester of pregnancy. Pregnant women were classified in three groups based on the results: diagnosed with preexisting pre-gestational overt diabetes; gestational diabetes and non-GDM women. Each group received packages for standard-care and all participants were followed till delivery; pregnancy outcomes, quality of life and cost of health care were recorded in detail using specific standardized questionnaires. Primary outcomes were defined as % birth-weight > 90th percentile and primary cesarean section. In addition, we assessed the direct health care direct and indirect costs.ResultsThis study will enable us to compare the cost effectiveness of different GDM screening protocols and intervention intensity (low versus high).ConclusionResults which if needed, will also enable policy makers to optimize the national GMD strategy as a resource for enhancing GDM guidelines.Trial registration Name of the registry: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. Trial registration number: IRCT138707081281N1. Date of registration: 2017-02-15. URL of trial registry record: https://www.irct.ir/trial/518.