Next Article in Journal
Eating Disorders and Diabetes: Facing the Dual Challenge
Previous Article in Journal
Autoimmune Thyroid Disorders: The Mediterranean Diet as a Protective Choice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/nu15183954
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effectiveness of the Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program TeLIPro for Improvement of HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized-Controlled Trial in a Real-Life Setting

by
Kerstin Kempf
1,*,
Clara Dubois
2,
Matthias Arnold
2,
Volker Amelung
2,
Nora Leppert
3,
Sibel Altin
4,
Markus Vomhof
5,6,7,
Andrea Icks
5,6,7 and
Stephan Martin
1,8
1
West-German Centre of Diabetes and Health, Düsseldorf Catholic Hospital Group, 40591 Düsseldorf, Germany
2
inav—Private Institute for Applied Health Services Research GmbH, 10117 Berlin, Germany
3
German Institute for Telemedicine and Healthcare (DITG) GmbH, 40591 Düsseldorf, Germany
4
General Health Insurance Scheme (AOK Rheinland/Hamburg—Die Gesundheitskasse), 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany
5
Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
6
Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
7
German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
8
Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2023, 15(18), 3954; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183954
Submission received: 17 August 2023 / Revised: 4 September 2023 / Accepted: 8 September 2023 / Published: 12 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Diabetes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effectiveness of the multimodal Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program (TeLIPro) was proven in the advanced stages of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Since its therapeutic potential focusing on telemedical coaching without using a formula diet is unknown, we evaluated improvements in HbA1c, HbA1c normalisation rate, cardiometabolic risk factors, quality-of-life, and eating behaviour in real life. In this randomized-controlled trial, AOK Rhineland/Hamburg insured T2DM patients (n = 1163) were randomized (1:1) into two parallel groups, and 817 received the allocated intervention. In addition to routine care, all participants got scales, step counters, and access to an online portal. The TeLIPro group additionally received equipment for self-monitoring of blood glucose and telemedical coaching. Data were collected at baseline, after 6 and 12 months of intervention as well as after a 6-month follow-up. The primary endpoint after 12 months was (i) the estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c change and (ii) the HbA1c normalisation rate in those with diabetes duration < 5 years. The TeLIPro group demonstrated significantly stronger improvements in HbA1c (ETD −0.4% (−0.5; −0.2); p < 0.001), body weight, body-mass-index, quality-of-life, and eating behaviour, especially in T2DM patients with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years (ETD −0.5% (−0.7; −0.3); p < 0.001). The HbA1c normalisation rate did not significantly differ between groups (25% vs. 18%). Continuous addition of TeLIPro to routine care is effective in improving HbA1c and health-related lifestyle in T2DM patients with longer diabetes duration in real life.

1. Introduction

The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one major problem for the healthcare system. In Germany, at least 8 million people are currently affected. Based on health insurance data, it is estimated that this number will rise to 11.5 million T2DM patients by 2040 [1]. Diabetic complications exacerbate the problem, not only because of the health limitations of those affected but also because the emerging medical costs are an enormous burden for the healthcare system, e.g., for retinopathy (EUR 700), diabetic foot syndrome (EUR 1300), nephropathy (EUR 3400), myocardial infarction (EUR 8000–8700), stroke (EUR 10,000–11,200), amputation (EUR 14,300), and end-stage renal disease (EUR 22,700) in the quarter of event [2].
In Germany, diabetes care is guaranteed by approx. 300 clinics with diabetes departments, 1100 diabetes practices, and 60,000 general practitioners, with one general practitioner usually treating about 100 patients with T2DM. A second major problem is that due to the age structure, the number of general practitioners and diabetologists is declining, so there are already large regional differences in diabetes care, which will become even more pronounced in the coming years [3]. Medical innovations, such as telemedical coaching, are necessary to promote the self-empowerment of patients as additional offers to standard care and also to relieve physicians.
Since an unhealthy lifestyle is a leading cause of the development of T2DM, studies have shown that within the first years after diabetes diagnosis structured, non-pharmacological lifestyle interventions can significantly improve metabolic control [4,5,6], up to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) normalisation [7] and diabetes remission [8,9]. In this context, telemedical support programs were developed, which differed, for example, in the technical implementation, type of contact, or target parameters. In general, positive effects on diabetes control have been demonstrated [10,11,12,13,14]; however, scientifically evaluated, multimodal, structured lifestyle intervention programs that support diabetes care in a structured and comprehensive manner and that can be prescribed by general practitioners throughout Germany are missing. Therefore, the Innovation Funds of the German Federal Ministry of Health support medically innovative programs that aim to improve healthcare in Germany [15].
To close this supply gap, we previously developed the multimodal Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program (TeLiPro), a structured lifestyle intervention program combining telemonitoring of physical activity and weight, self-monitoring of blood glucose, telemedical coaching, an evaluated mental motivational training, and carbohydrate-reduced nutrition starting with a 12-week formula diet phase and evaluated the efficacy in a previous randomized-controlled trial (RCT) (NCT02066831) in poorly controlled T2DM [16]. Participants of the intervention group achieved a significantly higher HbA1c reduction of −1.1 ± 1.2% (with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of −0.8% (−1.1; −0.5); p < 0.0001) [16].
In order to test the TeLIPro telemedical coaching under real-life conditions, i.e., the setting in which TeLIPro would be offered if it would be included as an on-top treatment to routine care, the present RCT received a grant from the Innovation Funds. After a positive assessment by the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA), TeLIPro might be prescribed by physicians and covered by health insurance in Germany.
Thus, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the potential impact of TeLIPro focusing on telemedical coaching without using a formula diet on metabolic control in real life. Therefore, we enrolled patients with T2DM of German statutory health insurance into an RCT. Based on our previous study in T2DM patients with longer-lasting (mean duration 11 years) and poorly controlled diabetes [16], we hypothesized that participation in TeLIPro would be associated with significantly stronger reductions in HbA1c, especially in those with a diabetes duration of ≥5 years. Since for patients with shorter diabetes duration, Lim et al. (<4 years) and Lean et al. (≤6 years) demonstrated a high potential for diabetes remission [8,9], the second hypothesis tested was that participation in TeLIPro would be associated with a higher HbA1c normalisation rate after 12 months in patients with a diabetes duration of <5 years compared to control patients in routine care.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The TeLIPro study is an RCT with two parallel groups analyzing the effect of telemedical coaching on HbA1c in patients with T2DM. The first participant was enrolled on 25 September 2018; the last participant finished the follow-up on 21 September 2021. The study was conducted by the German Institute for Telemedicine and Healthcare in cooperation with the West-German Centre of Diabetes and Health in Düsseldorf, the General Health Insurance Scheme in North Rhine Westphalia and Hamburg (AOK Rheinland/Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Germany) based in Düsseldorf and evaluated by the private Institute for Applied Health Services Research (inav).

2.2. Study Population

Persons diagnosed with T2DM and insured by the AOK Rhineland/Hamburg were informed by their health insurance about the opportunity to participate in the study. Interested persons were eligible if they were 18–67 years old (for reflecting the working population), with an HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2, internet access, and subscribed to the German Disease Management Program (DMP) Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exclusion criteria were: chronic diseases other than T2DM and hypertension (e.g., cancer, dementia, psychoses, kidney insufficiency with glomerular filtration rate < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, hearing loss), hospitalization during the last 3 months, acute chemotherapy, chronic cortisol treatment for longer than 6 weeks, pregnancy or breast-feeding, participation in another clinical trial during the last 6 months, or lack of knowledge of German.

2.3. Randomization and Masking

A serial study identification number (ID) was assigned by study staff to each participant who agreed to participate in the study, who had given written informed consent, and who fulfilled the inclusion and no exclusion criteria. The randomization list was electronically generated, and each ID was randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two parallel groups by a trial statistician. The trial statistician has no access to the list of IDs assigned to the names. The treating physicians and the outcome assessor were blinded for group assignment. For the participants and coaches, there was no blinding of assignment.

2.4. Procedures and Interventions

Participants of both the control and the TeLIPro group remained in routine care, i.e., quarterly DMP visits with their attending physician. Participants of both groups received self-monitoring telemedical devices, i.e., a scale (BF600, Beurer GmbH, Ulm, Germany; for weighing at least once/week), a step counter (AS 97, Beurer GmbH, Ulm, Germany; to be used on each day) and access to a secured online portal or App. Measured weight and steps were automatically transferred into the portal or App, and participants were able to enter additional health data. The TeLIPro group additionally received a blood glucose meter (Omnitest 5, B. Braun-Petzold GmbH, Melsungen, Germany) with test stripes for self-monitoring of blood glucose and according to participants’ individual needs 10–17 care calls (e.g., weekly in month 1, every second week in month 2–3, monthly in month 4–6, quarterly in month 7–12). Telemedical coaching was provided by diabetes assistants or diabetes consultants employed at the German Institute for Telemedicine and Healthcare, including technical advice and troubleshooting with telemedical devices, information about T2DM, healthy diet, and physical activity. For telemonitoring health data, the coaches also had access to the online portal or App. Weight development, step counts, and blood glucose profiles were discussed with regard to subjective obstacles or possibilities for lifestyle changes, and target agreements were made.
At baseline, after 6 and 12 months of intervention, as well as after 18 months (=6-month follow-up), health parameters (weight, BMI, blood pressure, and laboratory variables such as HbA1c, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides) were provided by the attending physicians and local laboratories. By using push-up information and telephone calls, the participants were advised to load the health data into the online portal or App. Letters from the physicians, including the measured health data, were used for data completion and validation. Physical and mental wellbeing, impairment in quality of life and eating behaviour were assessed online using validated self-reporting questionnaires (i.e., the short form (SF) 12 questionnaire [17], the German version ‘Allgemeine Depressionsskala’ (ADS-L) of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale [18], and the German version ‘Fragebogen zum Essverhalten’ (FEV) of the ‘Three-factor Eating Questionnaire’ [TFEQ] [19]. Regular data transfer (i.e., steps and body weight), logging into the online portal at least once a week, and answering the care calls were used as compliance measurements.

2.5. Outcomes

Based on our previous intervention in T2DM patients with longer-lasting and poorly controlled diabetes [16] and studies investigating HbA1c normalisation and diabetes remission in patients with short-term diabetes duration [8,9], the primary endpoint was (i) the ETD of HbA1c change after 12 months between groups, especially in patients with diabetes duration of ≥5 years and (ii) the HbA1c normalisation rate after 12 months in T2DM patients with diabetes duration of <5 years compared between the TeLIPro and the control group. HbA1c normalisation was defined as HbA1c < 6.5% at the corresponding time point [7]. Diabetes duration was taken from the health insurance billing data and validated by the physician’s letter. Secondary endpoints were differences in responder rate (defined by a clinically relevant HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% [20]), body weight, BMI, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life, and eating behaviour after 12 months as well as differences in all before mentioned parameters after 6 and 18 months.

2.6. Statistical Analysis and Power Calculation

Based on previous data of T2DM patients with longer-lasting and poorly controlled diabetes who participated in the TeLiPro telemedical lifestyle intervention program (including formula diet) and who achieved an HbA1c reduction of 0.7 ± 1.3% [16], for the present study, an HbA1c reduction of 0.5 ± 1.1% in the TeLIPro group and of 0.2 ± 0.9% in the control group after 12 months was assumed. The second calculation was based on previously obtained data for the TeLiPro application in another health insurance cohort of T2DM patients, who achieved an HbA1c normalisation rate of 18% after 12 months of intervention [21]. Thus, for T2DM patients with a diabetes duration < 5 years, an HbA1c normalisation rate of 18% was assumed for the TeLIPro group and 5% for the control group. To be still able to detect such differences with a power of 80% and a level of significance of 5% in the subgroups of patients with diabetes duration ≥ 5 and <5 years, respectively, at least 175 datasets (including HbA1c values at baseline as well as after 12 months of intervention) in the control and in the TeLIPro group from patients with longer-lasting diabetes and 94 datasets per group from patients with shorter diabetes duration were required. Assuming a dropout rate of approximately 30%, a minimum of 768 participants should have been recruited.
Per-protocol analyses were performed. For analysis of inter-group differences (estimated treatment difference) in HbA1c and secondary endpoints, a linear mixed model analysis was used (R-package lme4 version 1.1.31 [22] and emmeans version 1.8.3 [23]) with a random effect for an identification number and fixed effects for the group, time point, group*time point. HbA1c and secondary endpoints were imputed using predictive mean matching (R-package mice version 3.15.0 [24]). BMI at baseline, HbA1c at baseline, age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index (=a measure of mortality risk used by health assurances which is based on the ICD10 classification [25]), and time point were used for prediction of missing values. Bonferroni–Holm correction was used to control for multiple testing. For analysis of inter-group difference relative risk (RR) in HbA1c normalisation rate and clinically relevant HbA1c reduction, logistic mixed model analysis was used. The level of significance (α) was 0.05. Data were analyzed using the statistical software R version 4.2.1.

3. Results

A total of 1.163 patients were randomized into the control (n = 588) or the TeLIPro group (n = 575), of whom 453 and 364 (n = 817 in sum, set to 100%), respectively, received the allocated intervention. After 6 months, 751 participants (92%) remained in the study, i.e., 415 participants of the control group and 336 participants of the TeLIPro group. Moreover, 688 in sum (84%), i.e., 372 and 316 completed the 12 months of intervention (=final endpoint). Follow-up data were available for 657 (80%), i.e., 350 and 307 participants, respectively (Figure 1). Participants with data for HbA1c after 12 months (n = 467 (57%); i.e., control group n = 192; TeLIPro group n = 275) were included in the analysis. No imported harms or unintended effects have been reported.
Baseline parameters did not differ significantly between groups with the exception of a lower baseline HbA1c in the TeLIPro subgroup with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years and the overall study group compared to controls and a higher systolic blood pressure in the TeLIPro subgroup with diabetes durations ≥ 5 years (Table 1).
Moreover, baseline characteristics of completers and drop-outs did not significantly differ, except for group assignment, diabetes duration, and body weight, i.e., subjects in the control group (p = 0.039), with longer diabetes duration (p = 0.035) and higher body weight (p = 0.027) were more likely to drop out (Table 2).
A treatment superiority was observed for the TeLIPro group with an ETD in HbA1c reduction of −0.3% [−0.5; −0.2] (p < 0.01) during the 6 months of high intensive coaching and −0.4% [−0.5; −0.2] (p < 0.001) after 12 months of intervention. Six months after the end of coaching, ETD did not remain statistically significant (Figure 2a).
While in the control group of patients with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years there was no significant improvement of HbA1c after 12 months, the TeLIPro group demonstrated a mean HbA1c reduction of −0.4 ± 0.1% (p < 0.001) (Figure 2b). Moreover, 6 months after the end of the intervention, HbA1c values remained significantly reduced compared to baseline, although the reduction was comparable in both groups (−0.3 ± 0.1% in control vs. −0.2 ± 0.1% in the TeLIPro group). Thus, the ETD was −0.4% (−0.6; −0.2) (p < 0.01) after 6 months and −0.5% (−0.7; −0.3) (p < 0.001) after 12 months. There was no significant treatment difference after the follow-up phase. Sensitivity analyses with adjustment for sex, age, Elixhauser comorbidity index, BMI at baseline, and HbA1c at baseline confirmed these results (Table 3).
Although not reaching a statistically significant difference, the HbA1c normalisation rate in the subgroup with diabetes duration < 5 years tended to be higher in the TeLIPro group (n = 27; 25%) compared to the control group (n = 14; 18%) during the 12-month intervention phase. Achieved HbA1c normalisation rates could be maintained during the 6-month follow-up phase (Figure 2c).
The responder analysis showed that the RR for a clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c of at least 0.5% was significantly higher in the TeLIPro group after 12 months (RR 1.9 [1.3; 3.0], p = 0.002) respectively (Table 3). This difference in RR in favour of the TeLIPro group could also be found in those with diabetes duration < 5 years after 12 months (RR 2.1 [1.3; 3.0]; p = 0.004).
Although there was no significant difference in RR of achieving HbA1c normalisation for patients in the TeLiPro vs. the control group in those with shorter diabetes duration (Table 3), significantly higher RR for reaching HbA1c normalisation were observed in the complete TeLIPro group as well as in those with longer diabetes duration at all time points.
Moreover, significant treatment priority for body weight, BMI, physical and mental wellbeing, impairment of quality of life, and eating behaviour was observed for the TeLIPro group compared to the control group after 12 months of intervention (Table 4). With an exception for physical and mental wellbeing, all effects remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. However, they did not remain significant after the end of coaching (=6-month follow-up phase).

4. Discussion

The TeLIPro RCT proved that in a real-life setting, T2DM patients with longer diabetes duration can significantly benefit from the evaluated telemedicine-based lifestyle intervention. After 12 months of intervention, patients in the TeLIPro group achieved a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c, body weight, and BMI compared to controls who remained in routine medical care without additional telemedical coaching. Moreover, the TeLIPro group reported significant improvements in quality of life and eating behaviour. However, the missing effects in the follow-up phase show that coaching must be offered continuously in order to maintain these effects.
The current TeLIPro study in health insurance patients with T2DM is the follow-up and real-life verification study of the TeLiPro study in T2DM patients with insufficient metabolic control [16]. This previous trial combined five lifestyle intervention components, i.e., telemonitoring of physical activity and weight, self-monitoring of blood glucose, telemedical coaching, medical–mental motivation, and nutritional advice starting with an intensive meal-replacement phase [16]. After 3 months of intervention and 9 months of follow-up, the observed HbA1c reduction of −1.1 ± 1.2% had been significantly higher in the intervention group vs. −0.2 ± 0.8% in the control group with an ETD of −0.8% (−1.1; −0.5) (p < 0.0001). In the present study, the participants in the TeLIPro group were offered the same intervention components except for the formula diet. The effects in the current study with an ETD of −0.5% [−0.7; −0.3] (p < 0.001) are comparable but somewhat lower.
A possible explanation for this might be that the first study was advertised via general practitioners and newspaper articles, and the participants had registered of their own accord. In the later study, participation was offered to patients with T2DM by their health insurance; thus, patients with little motivation and less drive might have been included. But this represents the situation in real life. Nevertheless, after 12 months of intervention, 688 persons (84%) regularly transferred their steps and body weight, logged into the online portal at least once a week, and answered the care calls, though they were rated to be compliant. Therefore, the lack of meal replacement is seen as the main reason for the lower effects on HbA1c. During the telephone coaching, the participants were given nutritional advice with a focus on carbohydrate reduction and an increase in unsaturated lipid intake. These dietary interventions have the potential to prevent the development of T2DM [26,27] cardiovascular endpoints [28] and are associated with reduced mortality [29]. However, in contrast to the previous study, the intervention was not started with a formula diet for meal replacement, which apparently influenced the long-term HbA1c reduction. In previous studies, we could show that starting with an intensive meal replacement supported maintaining the achieved HbA1c reduction in the long term [30]. When the real-life verification study had been designed, the use of formula diets as a treatment option for T2DM was still rejected by diabetes associations and not supported by health insurance. In the meantime, however, the beneficial effects of formula diets have been documented in a large number of studies in different countries, with a substantial potential for diabetes remission [8,9,31,32,33], which is defined as HbA1c < 6.5% measured at least three months after termination of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy [34]. Therefore, meal-replacement therapy has become included in the guidelines of the national and international diabetes associations as a baseline therapy option for the treatment of T2DM [35,36].
Standard care with basic diabetes education was assumed to enable patients to carry out a successful lifestyle intervention on their own; however, a variety of studies rejected this postulation [37]. Intensive accompaniment during the intervention with strict carbohydrate reduction, quick reduction in insulin levels, and high weight reduction increases the chance of success [38]. Telemedical coaching is particularly important in this context to guarantee that participants understand the reasons why they should change their diet and lifestyle [12] because studies have shown that telephone calls alone are not sufficient to alter behaviour [39]. Strengthened cognitive control, reduced suggestibility, fewer feelings of hunger, and increased quality of life [16,40] underline the alterations in eating behaviour and lifestyle. Nevertheless, weight and HbA1c values often re-increase after the end of intervention [41,42]. Based on these observations, many lifestyle interventions were dismissed as not sustainable, especially for the reduction of all-cause mortality [43]. In the meantime, however, the potential of lifestyle interventions has been recognized so that they have even been included as basic therapy in the current diabetes guidelines [35,36]. However, the same demands would never have been placed on pharmaceutical diabetes therapy. They are understood to be life-long. During the 3-year follow-up of the original TeLiPro study, we were able to show that the re-increase in HBA1c after the end of the intervention could be stopped and Hba1c could be reduced again if the nutritional intervention and telemedical coaching were resumed [44]. Therefore, a rethinking of the sustainability of telemedically supported lifestyle interventions should be carried out, and they might be used as continuous on-top therapy options in addition to routine care. In this context, cost-benefit calculations are necessary.
However, in the meantime, health devices with transfer functions have become state-of-the-art and are no longer a cost driver. Moreover, the open system architecture of the portal ensures interoperability. As an end-to-end solution, the online portal supports the elimination of fragmentation in healthcare. By integrating the numerous devices available on the market, patients can use their own and already available devices in the future. Personnel-intensive delivery methods are successful, and new communication approaches via apps show impressive results [45,46]. Further analyses should investigate economic aspects and the impact on the reduction of cardiometabolic endpoints.
This study has several strengths and limitations that need to be mentioned. More than 42.000 health-insured persons have been invited for participation in the study, of whom only 1.163 were interested. There was a relatively high number of persons who did not receive the allocated intervention. When they had been invited by their health insurance to participate in the study, they agreed in the first step but then withdrew consent after randomization. This is a common problem in real-life health insurance studies and might be overcome by performing the randomization in a later phase, e.g., after the first log-in to the online portal. However, the drop-out rate for the whole study population that received the allocated intervention was only 16% during the 12-month study period and a further 4% in the 6-month follow-up phase, largely without significant differences between completers and dropouts at baseline. It could be hypothesized that this randomization procedure might have led to a selection bias since the control group and the TeLIPro group differ in baseline HbA1c. However, since the baseline HbA1c in the control group was higher, and studies have shown that a higher baseline Hba1c facilitates the Hba1c reduction [47], the observed treatment superiority of the TeLIPro group was rather underestimated.
An important strength and, at the same time, a limitation was the real-life study design, leaving patients in routine care at their general practitioner or diabetologist with the intervention as an on-top supply. A disadvantage and possibly the main limitation of the study is that due to the study design with the participants entering the data by themselves into the portal, the data sets were partly incomplete (also for HbA1c), and only the data sets containing HbA1c at baseline and after 12 months were evaluated. For quality control, the entered data could be validated by the study staff using the physician’s letters. One aspect of the real-world approach was to enhance the self-empowerment and personal responsibility of participants, not only in lifestyle change but also in self-monitoring of health parameters. This included the data input into the online portal. Although 84% received the allocated intervention until month 12, only 57% (i.e., 42% of the control and 76% of the TeLIPro group) managed to enter their HbA1c values into the online portal. Thus, the rate of missing HbA1c values in the control group was nearly twice that in the intervention group. This phenomenon has previously been observed [16] with less compliance in the control group with routine care. In order to overcome this problem, the control group was also equipped with telemedical devices; however, the pure self-monitoring opportunity was not enough to keep up the motivation. Ultimately, this once again illustrates the immense bond and commitment that arises from telemedical coaching.
It also might be criticized that the clinical variables had been measured in local laboratories. Nevertheless, since laboratory measurements were consistently performed at the same laboratory and were reported in written form by the attending physician using the standardized DMP documentation, intra-individual differences should not have been affected. Moreover, we observed a very high HbA1c normalisation rate in the control group, which was not significantly different from those in the TeLIPro group but higher than in comparable trials focusing on diabetes remission [8,9]. This could certainly be partially explained by the support provided by self-monitoring devices and portal usage. However, the most obvious explanation for this might be the fact that due to the study design, HbA1c normalisation was just defined as HbA1c < 6.5% without the requirement that the antidiabetic pharmacotherapy must have been discontinued for at least three months. If you use this definition, the results are comparable to other studies that use the same definition for HbA1c normalisation [7]. Therefore, the observed HbA1c normalisation rates mainly represent the well-adjustable metabolic control in early diabetes stages.

5. Conclusions

The study demonstrated that the TeLIPro lifestyle intervention can significantly improve HbA1c levels and is an effective on-top tool for T2DM patients with longer-lasting diabetes in addition to routine care. For maintenance of the improvements, coaching should be offered continuously. After this confirmatory approach, TeLIPro might be provided nationwide by health assurances.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K., M.A., V.A., N.L., S.A., M.V., A.I. and S.M.; formal analysis, C.D.; investigation, N.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.K., C.D., M.A., V.A., N.L., S.A., M.V., A.I. and S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the innovation funds of the German Federal Ministry of Health (grant no. 01NVF17033) administered by the Joint Federal Committee (https://innovationsfonds.g-ba.de/projekte/neue-versorgungsformen/telipro-telemedizinisches-lebensstil-interventions-programm-fuer-typ-2-diabetiker.178 (accessed on 14 August 2023)).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ärztekammer Nordrhein (approval no. 2011294; date of approval 7 September 2018). The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03675919).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank our coaches for their excellent work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Tonnies, T.; Rockl, S.; Hoyer, A.; Heidemann, C.; Baumert, J.; Du, Y.; Scheidt-Nave, C.; Brinks, R. Projected number of people with diagnosed Type 2 diabetes in Germany in 2040. Diabet. Med. 2019, 36, 1217–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kahm, K.; Laxy, M.; Schneider, U.; Rogowski, W.H.; Lhachimi, S.K.; Holle, R. Health Care Costs Associated with Incident Complications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Germany. Diabetes Care 2018, 41, 971–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Siegel, E.S.; Siegel, E.G. Versorgungsstrukturen, Berufsbilder und professionelle Diabetesorganisationen in Deutschland. In Deutscher Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2023; Verlag Kirchheim + Co GmbH: Mainz, Germany, 2022; pp. 201–209. [Google Scholar]
  4. Katula, J.A.; Dressler, E.V.; Kittel, C.A.; Harvin, L.N.; Almeida, F.A.; Wilson, K.E.; Michaud, T.L.; Porter, G.C.; Brito, F.A.; Goessl, C.L.; et al. Effects of a Digital Diabetes Prevention Program: An RCT. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2022, 62, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Christensen, J.R.; Hesseldal, L.; Olesen, T.B.; Olsen, M.H.; Jakobsen, P.R.; Laursen, D.H.; Lauridsen, J.T.; Nielsen, J.B.; Sondergaard, J.; Brandt, C.J. Long-term weight loss in a 24-month primary care-anchored telehealth lifestyle coaching program: Randomized controlled trial. J. Telemed. Telecare 2022, 28, 764–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Toro-Ramos, T.; Michaelides, A.; Anton, M.; Karim, Z.; Kang-Oh, L.; Argyrou, C.; Loukaidou, E.; Charitou, M.M.; Sze, W.; Miller, J.D. Mobile Delivery of the Diabetes Prevention Program in People with Prediabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e17842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Christensen, J.R.; Laursen, D.H.; Lauridsen, J.T.; Hesseldal, L.; Jakobsen, P.R.; Nielsen, J.B.; Sondergaard, J.; Brandt, C.J. Reversing Type 2 Diabetes in a Primary Care-Anchored eHealth Lifestyle Coaching Programme in Denmark: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lim, E.L.; Hollingsworth, K.G.; Aribisala, B.S.; Chen, M.J.; Mathers, J.C.; Taylor, R. Reversal of type 2 diabetes: Normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol. Diabetologia 2011, 54, 2506–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lean, M.E.J.; Leslie, W.S.; Barnes, A.C.; Brosnahan, N.; Thom, G.; McCombie, L.; Peters, C.; Zhyzhneuskaya, S.; Al-Mrabeh, A.; Hollingsworth, K.G.; et al. Durability of a primary care-led weight-management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2-year results of the DiRECT open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019, 7, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De, G.J.; Wu, D.; Flynn, D.; Robertson, D.; Grant, G.; Sun, J. Efficacy of telemedicine on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. World J. Diabetes 2021, 12, 170–197. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fernando, M.E.; Seng, L.; Drovandi, A.; Crowley, B.J.; Golledge, J. Effectiveness of Remotely Delivered Interventions to Simultaneously Optimize Management of Hypertension, Hyperglycemia and Dyslipidemia in People with Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 848695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Almulhim, A.N.; Hartley, H.; Norman, P.; Caton, S.J.; Dogru, O.C.; Goyder, E. Behavioural Change Techniques in Health Coaching-Based Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hangaard, S.; Laursen, S.H.; Andersen, J.D.; Kronborg, T.; Vestergaard, P.; Hejlesen, O.; Udsen, F.W. The Effectiveness of Telemedicine Solutions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2023, 17, 794–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Morris, T.; Aspinal, F.; Ledger, J.; Li, K.; Gomes, M. The Impact of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes on Health and Social Care Utilisation and Costs: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoecon Open 2023, 7, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hecken, J. Typ-2-Diabetes: Etablierte Versorgungsangebote aktualisieren, innovative Modelle erproben. In Deutscher Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2023; Verlag Kirchheim + Co GmbH: Mainz, Germany, 2022; pp. 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kempf, K.; Altpeter, B.; Berger, J.; Reuss, O.; Fuchs, M.; Schneider, M.; Gartner, B.; Niedermeier, K.; Martin, S. Efficacy of the Telemedical Lifestyle intervention Program TeLiPro in Advanced Stages of Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 2017, 40, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gandek, B.; Ware, J.E.; Aaronson, N.K.; Apolone, G.; Bjorner, J.B.; Brazier, J.E.; Bullinger, M.; Kaasa, S.; Leplege, A.; Prieto, L.; et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hautzinger, M.; Bailer, M. ADS. Allgemeine Depressionsskala; Beltz Test GmbH: Weinheim, Germany, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  19. Stunkard, A.J.; Messick, S. The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. J. Psychosom. Res. 1985, 29, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Little, R.R.; Rohlfing, C.L. The long and winding road to optimal HbA1c measurement. Clin. Chim. Acta 2013, 418, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kempf, K.; Altpeter, B.; Berger, J.; Herrmann, S.; Leppert, N.; Röhling, M.; Martin, S. Das Telemedizinische Lebensstilinterventionsprogramm (TeLiPro) als Zusatzleistung zur Regelversorgung bei Personen mit Typ-2-Diabetes. Diabetol. Stoffwechs. 2019, 28, 173–179. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lenth, R.; Singmann, H.; Love, J.; Buerkner, P.; Herve, M. Package Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares means. R Package Version 1.8.3. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  24. van Buuren, S.; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chaned Equitations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 45, 1–67. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Walraven, C.; Austin, P.C.; Jennings, A.; Quan, H.; Forster, A.J. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med. Care 2009, 47, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Röhling, M.; Kempf, K.; Banzer, W.; Berg, A.; Braumann, K.M.; Tan, S.; Halle, M.; McCarthy, D.; Pinget, M.; Predel, H.G.; et al. Prediabetes Conversion to Normoglycemia Is Superior Adding a Low-Carbohydrate and Energy Deficit Formula Diet to Lifestyle Intervention-A 12-Month Subanalysis of the ACOORH Trial. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Salas-Salvado, J.; Bullo, M.; Babio, N.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Ibarrola-Jurado, N.; Basora, J.; Estruch, R.; Covas, M.I.; Corella, D.; Aros, F.; et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with the Mediterranean diet: Results of the PREDIMED-Reus nutrition intervention randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2011, 34, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Estruch, R.; Ros, E.; Salas-Salvado, J.; Covas, M.I.; Corella, D.; Aros, F.; Gomez-Gracia, E.; Ruiz-Gutierrez, V.; Fiol, M.; Lapetra, J.; et al. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Dehghan, M.; Mente, A.; Zhang, X.; Swaminathan, S.; Li, W.; Mohan, V.; Iqbal, R.; Kumar, R.; Wentzel-Viljoen, E.; Rosengren, A.; et al. Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): A prospective cohort study. Lancet 2017, 390, 2050–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kempf, K.; Röhling, M.; Niedermeier, K.; Gartner, B.; Martin, S. Individualized Meal Replacement Therapy Improves Clinically Relevant Long-Term Glycemic Control in Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Patients. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Taheri, S.; Zaghloul, H.; Chagoury, O.; Elhadad, S.; Ahmed, S.H.; El, K.N.; Amona, R.A.; El, N.K.; Suleiman, N.; Alnaama, A.; et al. Effect of intensive lifestyle intervention on bodyweight and glycaemia in early type 2 diabetes (DIADEM-I): An open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020, 8, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Durrer, C.; McKelvey, S.; Singer, J.; Batterham, A.M.; Johnson, J.D.; Gudmundson, K.; Wortman, J.; Little, J.P. A randomized controlled trial of pharmacist-led therapeutic carbohydrate and energy restriction in type 2 diabetes. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Churuangsuk, C.; Hall, J.; Reynolds, A.; Griffin, S.J.; Combet, E.; Lean, M.E.J. Diets for weight management in adults with type 2 diabetes: An umbrella review of published meta-analyses and systematic review of trials of diets for diabetes remission. Diabetologia 2022, 65, 14–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Riddle, M.C.; Cefalu, W.T.; Evans, P.H.; Gerstein, H.C.; Nauck, M.A.; Oh, W.K.; Rothberg, A.E.; le Roux, C.W.; Rubino, F.; Schauer, P.; et al. Consensus Report: Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2021, 44, 2438–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ADA. 5. Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, S46–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Skurk, T.; Bosy-Westphal, A.; Grunerbel, A.; Kabisch, S.; Keuthage, W.; Kronsbein, P.; Mussig, K.; Pfeiffer, A.F.H.; Simon, M.C.; Tombek, A.; et al. Dietary recommendations for persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 2022, 130, S151–S184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Garcia-Molina, L.; Lewis-Mikhael, A.M.; Riquelme-Gallego, B.; Cano-Ibanez, N.; Oliveras-Lopez, M.J.; Bueno-Cavanillas, A. Improving type 2 diabetes mellitus glycaemic control through lifestyle modification implementing diet intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Nutr. 2020, 59, 1313–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Franz, M.J.; Boucher, J.L.; Rutten-Ramos, S.; VanWormer, J.J. Lifestyle weight-loss intervention outcomes in overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015, 115, 1447–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. O’Connor, P.J.; Schmittdiel, J.A.; Pathak, R.D.; Harris, R.I.; Newton, K.M.; Ohnsorg, K.A.; Heisler, M.; Sterrett, A.T.; Xu, S.; Dyer, W.T.; et al. Randomized trial of telephone outreach to improve medication adherence and metabolic control in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 3317–3324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kempf, K.; Röhling, M.; Banzer, W.; Braumann, K.M.; Halle, M.; Schaller, N.; McCarthy, D.; Predel, H.G.; Schenkenberger, I.; Tan, S.; et al. High-Protein, Low-Glycaemic Meal Replacement Improves Physical Health-Related Quality of Life in High-Risk Persons for Metabolic Syndrome-A Subanalysis of the Randomised-Controlled ACOORH Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dansinger, M.L.; Tatsioni, A.; Wong, J.B.; Chung, M.; Balk, E.M. Meta-analysis: The effect of dietary counseling for weight loss. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cradock, K.A.; OLaighin, G.; Finucane, F.M.; Gainforth, H.L.; Quinlan, L.R.; Ginis, K.A. Behaviour change techniques targeting both diet and physical activity in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Look AHEAD Research Group. Effects of Intensive Lifestyle Intervention on All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes and Overweight/Obesity: Results from the Look AHEAD Study. Diabetes Care 2022, 45, 1252–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Röhling, M.; Kempf, K.; Altpeter, B.; Berg, A.; Herrmann, S.; Leppert, N.; Martin, S. Das Telemedizinische Lebensstilinterventionsprogramm (TeLiPro) verbessert initial wie auch bei Re-Intervention die Diabeteseinstellung—Daten zum 3-Jahres-Follow-up. Diabetol. Stoffwechs. 2019, 28, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lunde, P.; Nilsson, B.B.; Bergland, A.; Kvaerner, K.J.; Bye, A. The Effectiveness of Smartphone Apps for Lifestyle Improvement in Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hou, C.; Carter, B.; Hewitt, J.; Francisa, T.; Mayor, S. Do Mobile Phone Applications Improve Glycemic Control (HbA1c) in the Self-management of Diabetes? A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 Randomized Trials. Diabetes Care 2016, 39, 2089–2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bloomgarden, Z.T.; Dodis, R.; Viscoli, C.M.; Holmboe, E.S.; Inzucchi, S.E. Lower baseline glycemia reduces apparent oral agent glucose-lowering efficacy: A meta-regression analysis. Diabetes Care 2006, 29, 2137–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 15 03954 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Figure 1. Flow chart.
Nutrients 15 03954 g001
Nutrients 15 03954 g002
Figure 2. Reduction of HbA1c and HbA1c normalisation rate. (a) While participants of the control group remained in routine care, the TeLIPro group obtained highly intensive coaching during months 1–6, with median intensive coaching in months 7–12 followed by a 6-month phase without coaching. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) (95% confidence interval) in HbA1c reduction was estimated after 6, 12, and 18 months. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model without adjustments. (b) In patients with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years, HbA1c was measured after 6 and 12 months of intervention as well as after 6 months of follow-up. Differences to baseline were estimated for the TeLIPro (n = 165; black circles) and the control group (n = 115; white circles) using a linear mixed model (* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001). Shown are means ± standard error of the mean. (c) HbA1c normalisation was defined as HcA1c < 6.5%. HbA1c normalisation rates in patients with diabetes duration < 5 years were compared in the TeLIPro (n = 110; black circles) vs. the control group (n = 77; white circles) using a logistic mixed model.
Figure 2. Reduction of HbA1c and HbA1c normalisation rate. (a) While participants of the control group remained in routine care, the TeLIPro group obtained highly intensive coaching during months 1–6, with median intensive coaching in months 7–12 followed by a 6-month phase without coaching. The estimated treatment difference (ETD) (95% confidence interval) in HbA1c reduction was estimated after 6, 12, and 18 months. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model without adjustments. (b) In patients with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years, HbA1c was measured after 6 and 12 months of intervention as well as after 6 months of follow-up. Differences to baseline were estimated for the TeLIPro (n = 165; black circles) and the control group (n = 115; white circles) using a linear mixed model (* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001). Shown are means ± standard error of the mean. (c) HbA1c normalisation was defined as HcA1c < 6.5%. HbA1c normalisation rates in patients with diabetes duration < 5 years were compared in the TeLIPro (n = 110; black circles) vs. the control group (n = 77; white circles) using a logistic mixed model.
Nutrients 15 03954 g002
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Control GroupTeLIPro Group
ParametersAll
(n = 453)		Diabetes Duration < 5 Years (n = 182)Diabetes Duration ≥ 5 Years (n = 271)All
(n = 364)		Diabetes Duration < 5 Years (n = 143)Diabetes Duration ≥ 5 Years (n = 221)
Sex male/female (%)65/3565/3565/3562/3862/3862/38
Age (years)54 ± 951 ± 1056 ± 855 ± 952 ± 1057 ± 8
HbA1c (%)7.8 ± 1.37.6 ± 1.48.0 ± 1.37.6 ± 1.2 *7.5 ± 1.17.7 ± 1.2 **
Body weight (kg)103 ± 22106 ± 25102 ± 19104 ± 23108 ± 24102 ± 22
BMI (kg/m2)34.4 ± 6.535.1 ± 7.233.9 ± 6.134.8 ± 7.035.7 ± 7.834.2 ± 6.4
Systolic BP (mmHg)133 ± 16133 ± 15133 ± 16134 ± 17132 ± 20135 ± 14 *
Diastolic BP (mmHg)82 ± 982 ± 981 ± 982 ± 1181 ± 1182 ± 11
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)194 ± 48197 ± 46193 ± 49195 ± 40200 ± 38193 ± 42
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)47 ± 1847 ± 1947 ± 1844 ± 1542 ± 1146 ± 17
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)123 ± 39128 ± 41120 ± 38123 ± 36128 ± 33120 ± 38
Triglycerides (mg/dL)211 ± 128208 ± 117212 ± 135208 ± 121202 ± 106211 ± 129
Physical wellbeing (au) a41.0 ± 10.242.2 ± 10.540.2 ± 9.941.2 ± 10.241.1 ± 10.141.2 ± 10.4
Mental wellbeing (au) a48.4 ± 11.247.7 ± 11.448.8 ± 11.048.8 ± 10.747.9 ± 10.249.4 ± 11.0
Impairment of QoL (au) b14.4 ± 9.815.3 ± 10.313.9 ± 9.414.5 ± 9.414.9 ± 9.014.2 ± 9.6
Cognitive control (au) c7.5 ± 4.47.4 ± 4.47.6 ± 4.37.5 ± 4.27.5 ± 4.37.5 ± 4.1
Suggestibility (au) c6.2 ± 3.56.0 ± 3.26.4 ± 3.66.2 ± 3.46.1 ± 3.46.2 ± 3.4
Hunger (au) c5.5 ± 3.65.3 ± 3.45.6 ± 3.85.7 ± 3.75.5 ± 3.85.4 ± 3.7
Data are n (%) or mean ± SD. Data were missing for body weight (n = 37; 5%), BMI (n = 37; 5%), systolic (n = 125; 15%) and diastolic blood pressure (BP; n = 135; 17%), total (n = 206; 25%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL; n = 299; 37%), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (n = 121; 15%), and triglycerides (n = 256; 31%). Between-group differences (TeLIPro vs. control) were analyzed by the Mann–Whitney U test or Chi2 test (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01); a Determined using SF-12 [17]; b German version of the ‘General Depression Scale’ (CES-D) [18]; c German version of the ‘Three-factor Eating Questionnaire’ (TFEQ) [19]; QoL, quality of life; au, arbitrary units.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of completers and dropouts.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of completers and dropouts.
ParametersCompleters (n = 657)Drop Outs (n = 160)
Control group/TeLiPro group (%)53/4764/36 *
Diabetes duration < 5/≥5 years (%)41/5934/66 *
Sex male/female (%)64/3663/37
Age (years)54 ± 955 ± 9
HbA1c (%)7.7 ± 1.37.7 ± 1.3
Body weight (kg)104 ± 23100 ± 20 *
BMI (kg/m2)34.8 ± 7.033.5 ± 6.5
Systolic BP (mmHg)134 ± 17133 ± 14
Diastolic BP (mmHg)82 ± 1081 ± 8
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)194 ± 46198 ± 38
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)46 ± 1646 ± 19
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)123 ± 39124 ± 35
Triglycerides (mg/dL)210 ± 129204 ± 105
Physical wellbeing (au)41.1 ± 10.340.9 ± 9.7
Mental wellbeing (au)48.8 ± 11.047.7 ± 10.9
Impairment of QoL (au)14.3 ± 9.515.0 ± 9.9
Cognitive control (au)7.6 ± 4.37.4 ± 4.3
Suggestibility (au)6.2 ± 3.56.2 ± 3.3
Hunger (au)5.5 ± 3.75.4 ± 3.7
Data are n (%) or mean ± SD. Participants who completed the 12 months of intervention as well as the 6 months of follow-up were defined as completers. Between-group differences were analyzed by the Mann–Whitney U test or Chi2 test (* p < 0.05). For further details, please see legend in Table 1.
Table 3. ETD of HbA1c reduction with sensitivity analysis, relative risk for HbA1c normalisation, and clinically relevant HbA1c reduction.
Table 3. ETD of HbA1c reduction with sensitivity analysis, relative risk for HbA1c normalisation, and clinically relevant HbA1c reduction.
Time (Months)61218
Estimated treatment difference (ETD)
ETD (TeLIPro vs. control)−0.3 (−0.5; −0.2) **−0.4 (−0.5; −0.2) ***−0.1 (−0.3; 0.1)
Model 2−0.3 (−0.5; −0.1) **−0.3 (−0.5; −0.1) **0.1 (−0.1; 0.3)
Model 3−0.3 (−0.5; −0.2) **−0.4 (−0.6; −0.2) ***−0.0 (−0.2; 0.2)
ETD (diabetes duration ≥ 5 years)−0.4 (−0.6; −0.2) **−0.5 (−0.7; −0.3) ***−0.2 (−0.4; 0.0)
Model 2−0.4 (−0.6; −0.1) **−0.4 (−0.6; −0.2) **−0.1 (−0.2; 0.3)
Model 3−0.5 (−0.7; −0.3) ***−0.5 (−0.7; −0.3) ***−0.1 (−0.3; 0.2)
ETD (diabetes duration < 5 years)−0.2 (−0.4; 0.1)−0.2 (−0.5; 0.1)0.0 (−0.3; 0.4)
Model 2−0.1 (−0.5; 0.2)−0.2 (−0.5; 0.1)0.1 (−0.3; 0.5)
Model 3−0.1 (−0.4; 0.2)−0.2 (−0.5; 0.1)0.1 (−0.2; 0.5)
Responder analysis (relative risk (RR) for clinically relevant HbA1c reduction)
RR (TeLIPro vs. control)1.6 (1.1; 2.0) *1.9 (1.3; 3.0) **1.4 (0.9; 2.0)
RR (diabetes duration ≥ 5 years)1.8 (1.0; 3.0)1.7 (0.9; 3.0)1.4 (0.7; 3.0)
RR (diabetes duration < 5 years)1.4 (0.9; 2.0)2.1 (1.3; 4.0) **1.4 (0.8; 3.0)
HbA1c normalisation
RR (TeLIPro vs. control)3.4 (1.7; 6.9) ***2.1 (1.1; 3.9) *2.8 (1.3; 6.1) **
RR (diabetes duration ≥ 5 years)6.3 (2.9; 18.5) ***3.1 (1.1; 8.6) *5.4 (1.5; 19.3) **
RR (diabetes duration < 5 years)2.0 (0.8; 4.8)1.4 (0.6; 3.1)1.7 (0.6; 4.7)
Shown are model-based estimators and 95% confidence intervals of the ETD in HbA1c reduction. The analyses included all datasets with an HbA1c value at baseline and after 12 months (TeLIPro n = 275 (subgroup with diabetes duration ≥ 5 years n = 165; with diabetes duration < 5 years n = 110); control n = 192 (diabetes duration ≥ 5 years n = 115; <5 years n = 77). Missing values after 18 months (n = 122; 26%) were imputed using predictive mean matching. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models including all available values at the corresponding time point: in the basic mixed model without adjustments; model 2 = basic mixed model + adjustment for sex, age, Elixhauser comorbidity index, BMI at baseline; model 3 = model 2 + adjustment for HbA1c at baseline Responder have been defined by a clinically relevant HbA1c reduction of at least 0.5%. HbA1c normalisation was defined as HbA1c < 6.5%. RR and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a logistic mixed model (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Table 4. Estimated treatment differences of secondary endpoints after 12 months.
Table 4. Estimated treatment differences of secondary endpoints after 12 months.
ParametersControl Group (n = 192)TeLIPro Group (n = 275)ETD
(TeLIPro vs. Control)		p
HbA1c (%)−0.0 ± 0.1–0.4 ± 0.1−0.4 (−0.5; −0.2)<0.001
Body weight (kg)–0.7 ± 0.4–2.9 ± 0.3−2.2 (−1.3; −3.0)<0.001
BMI (kg/m2)–0.2 ± 0.1–0.9 ± 0.1−0.8 (−0.5; −1.0)<0.001
Systolic BP (mmHg)–0.3 ± 1.1–1.5 ± 0.9−1.2 (1.5; −3.9)0.384
Diastolic BP (mmHg)–0.8 ± 0.9–1.1 ± 0.7−0.3 (1.7; −2.3)0.770
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)–5.3 ± 2.4–6.6 ± 2.5−1.3 (4.8; −7.5)0.672
HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)0.8 ± 1.51.4 ± 1.20.6 (3.3; −2.2)0.675
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)–4.9 ± 3.5−5.7 ± 2.9−0.8 (4.9; −6.5)0.787
Triglycerides (mg/dL)–12.8 ± 8.3–14.1 ± 9.3−1.3 (16.6; −19.1)0.890
Physical wellbeing (au)1.4 ± 0.52.9 ± 0.41.4 (2.7; 0.2)0.023
Mental wellbeing (au)–1.6 ± 0.70.3 ± 0.51.9 (3.6; 0.2)0.029
Impairment of QoL (au)1.1 ± 0.9–1.3 ± 0.5−2.3 (−0.9; −3.7)0.001
Cognitive control (au)0.9 ± 0.32.7 ± 0.21.8 (2.4; 1.1)<0.001
Suggestibility (au)–0.5 ± 0.2–1.1 ± 0.1−0.6 (−0.2; −1.0)0.003
Hunger (au)–0.7 ± 0.2–1.8 ± 0.2−1.1 (−0.6; −1.5)<0.001
Shown are within-group differences (12 months vs. baseline) ± SEM and the ETD (95% confidence interval). All datasets with an HbA1c value after 12 months were included. Data were missing for body weight (n = 34; 7%), BMI (n = 34; 7%), systolic (n = 124; 27%) and diastolic blood pressure (BP; n = 127; 27%), total (n = 196; 42%), HDL (n = 241; 52%), and LDL cholesterol (n = 116; 25%), triglycerides (n = 217; 46%), physical (n = 14; 3%) and mental wellbeing (n = 14; 3%), impairment of quality of life (n = 18; 4%), cognitive control of eating behaviour (n = 22; 4%), suggestibility (n = 22; 4%), and hunger (n = 22; 4%). Missing data were estimated using predictive mean matching. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model without adjustment. Values with significant difference after Bonferroni correction were written in bold. For further details, please see legend in Table 1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kempf, K.; Dubois, C.; Arnold, M.; Amelung, V.; Leppert, N.; Altin, S.; Vomhof, M.; Icks, A.; Martin, S. Effectiveness of the Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program TeLIPro for Improvement of HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized-Controlled Trial in a Real-Life Setting. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3954. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183954

AMA Style

Kempf K, Dubois C, Arnold M, Amelung V, Leppert N, Altin S, Vomhof M, Icks A, Martin S. Effectiveness of the Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program TeLIPro for Improvement of HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized-Controlled Trial in a Real-Life Setting. Nutrients. 2023; 15(18):3954. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183954

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kempf, Kerstin, Clara Dubois, Matthias Arnold, Volker Amelung, Nora Leppert, Sibel Altin, Markus Vomhof, Andrea Icks, and Stephan Martin. 2023. "Effectiveness of the Telemedical Lifestyle Intervention Program TeLIPro for Improvement of HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized-Controlled Trial in a Real-Life Setting" Nutrients 15, no. 18: 3954. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183954

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop