OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein: A cross-over, randomised controlled trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection therapy.
Tenele A Smith, Nisha Venkatesh, Kerryn Roem, Jean C Lu, Emma Netzer, Adrian Medioli, Stuart Szwec, David N O'Neal, Bruce R King, Carmel E Smart
{"title":"OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein: A cross-over, randomised controlled trial in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injection therapy.","authors":"Tenele A Smith, Nisha Venkatesh, Kerryn Roem, Jean C Lu, Emma Netzer, Adrian Medioli, Stuart Szwec, David N O'Neal, Bruce R King, Carmel E Smart","doi":"10.1111/dme.15487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To (1) evaluate the efficacy of OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein in managing glycaemia compared with carbohydrate counting in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using flexible multiple daily injection therapy (MDI, ≥4 injections/day) and (2) assess user acceptability of OptimAAPP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this free-living trial, participants aged 12-50 years were randomised to use carbohydrate counting or OptimAAPP for meal insulin dose calculation for 3 months, then use the alternate method for 3 months. The primary outcome, time-in-range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was measured in weeks 3-4 of each arm using continuous glucose monitoring. The acceptability of OptimAAPP was assessed at end intervention using a purpose-designed questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An intention-to-treat analysis of 41 participants, mean age 28 ± 12 years and HbA1c 56 ± 10 mmol/mol (7.3 ± 0.9%) found no significant difference in glycaemic outcomes when using OptimAAPP compared with carbohydrate counting including time-in-range (70.5 vs. 67.6%, p = 0.102), above range (24.5% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.068), below range (4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.318), and coefficient of variation (32.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.136). There was no severe hypoglycaemia. Participants reported that OptimAAPP was easy to use (79%), and they were confident in giving the recommended doses (82%). Barriers to use were the small food database and the time associated with food entry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adolescents and adults using flexible MDI therapy, OptimAAPP use did not produce glycaemic outcomes that were significantly different from carbohydrate counting. Participant views of OptimAAPP indicate a high level of acceptability. Increasing the size of the food database will likely enhance the user experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":11251,"journal":{"name":"Diabetic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e15487"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.15487","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To (1) evaluate the efficacy of OptimAAPP, a smartphone insulin dose calculator for carbohydrate, fat, and protein in managing glycaemia compared with carbohydrate counting in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes using flexible multiple daily injection therapy (MDI, ≥4 injections/day) and (2) assess user acceptability of OptimAAPP.
Methods: In this free-living trial, participants aged 12-50 years were randomised to use carbohydrate counting or OptimAAPP for meal insulin dose calculation for 3 months, then use the alternate method for 3 months. The primary outcome, time-in-range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was measured in weeks 3-4 of each arm using continuous glucose monitoring. The acceptability of OptimAAPP was assessed at end intervention using a purpose-designed questionnaire.
Results: An intention-to-treat analysis of 41 participants, mean age 28 ± 12 years and HbA1c 56 ± 10 mmol/mol (7.3 ± 0.9%) found no significant difference in glycaemic outcomes when using OptimAAPP compared with carbohydrate counting including time-in-range (70.5 vs. 67.6%, p = 0.102), above range (24.5% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.068), below range (4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.318), and coefficient of variation (32.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.136). There was no severe hypoglycaemia. Participants reported that OptimAAPP was easy to use (79%), and they were confident in giving the recommended doses (82%). Barriers to use were the small food database and the time associated with food entry.
Conclusions: In adolescents and adults using flexible MDI therapy, OptimAAPP use did not produce glycaemic outcomes that were significantly different from carbohydrate counting. Participant views of OptimAAPP indicate a high level of acceptability. Increasing the size of the food database will likely enhance the user experience.
目的:(1)评估OptimAAPP(一款用于碳水化合物、脂肪和蛋白质的智能胰岛素剂量计算器)与碳水化合物计数在青少年和成人1型糖尿病患者使用灵活多次每日注射治疗(MDI,≥4次/天)管理血糖的疗效;(2)评估OptimAAPP的用户可接受性。方法:在这项自由生活的试验中,12-50岁的参与者被随机分配使用碳水化合物计数或OptimAAPP计算3个月的膳食胰岛素剂量,然后使用替代方法计算3个月。主要终点,时间范围(3.9-10.0 mmol/L)在每组3-4周通过连续血糖监测测量。在干预结束时,使用专门设计的问卷评估OptimAAPP的可接受性。结果:对41名平均年龄为28±12岁、HbA1c为56±10 mmol/mol(7.3±0.9%)的参与者进行意向治疗分析发现,与碳水化合物计数相比,使用OptimAAPP的血糖结局无显著差异,包括时间范围(70.5 vs 67.6%, p = 0.102)、范围以上(24.5% vs 28.0%, p = 0.068)、范围以下(4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.318)和变异系数(32.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.136)。无严重低血糖。参与者报告说OptimAAPP易于使用(79%),他们对给予推荐剂量有信心(82%)。使用的障碍是小的食物数据库和与食物输入相关的时间。结论:在使用灵活MDI治疗的青少年和成人中,使用OptimAAPP不会产生与碳水化合物计数显著不同的血糖结果。参与者对OptimAAPP的看法表明可接受度很高。增加食品数据库的规模可能会增强用户体验。
期刊介绍:
Diabetic Medicine, the official journal of Diabetes UK, is published monthly simultaneously, in print and online editions.
The journal publishes a range of key information on all clinical aspects of diabetes mellitus, ranging from human genetic studies through clinical physiology and trials to diabetes epidemiology. We do not publish original animal or cell culture studies unless they are part of a study of clinical diabetes involving humans. Categories of publication include research articles, reviews, editorials, commentaries, and correspondence. All material is peer-reviewed.
We aim to disseminate knowledge about diabetes research with the goal of improving the management of people with diabetes. The journal therefore seeks to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers worldwide. Topics covered are of importance to all healthcare professionals working with people with diabetes, whether in primary care or specialist services.
Surplus generated from the sale of Diabetic Medicine is used by Diabetes UK to know diabetes better and fight diabetes more effectively on behalf of all people affected by and at risk of diabetes as well as their families and carers.”