Evaluation of a New Digital Automated Glycemic Pattern Detection Tool

Background: Blood glucose meters are reliable devices for data collection, providing electronic logs of historical data easier to interpret than handwritten logbooks. Automated tools to analyze these data are necessary to facilitate glucose pattern detection and support treatment adjustment. These tools emerge in a broad variety in a more or less nonevaluated manner. The aim of this study was to compare eDetecta, a new automated pattern detection tool, to nonautomated pattern analysis in terms of time investment, data interpretation, and clinical utility, with the overarching goal to identify early in development and implementation of tool areas of improvement and potential safety risks. Methods: Multicenter web-based evaluation in which 37 endocrinologists were asked to assess glycemic patterns of 4 real reports (2 continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and 2 multiple daily injection [MDI]). Endocrinologist and eDetecta analyses were compared on time spent to analyze each report and agreement on the presence or absence of defined patterns. Results: eDetecta module markedly reduced the time taken to analyze each case on the basis of the emminens eConecta reports (CSII: 18 min; MDI: 12.5), compared to the automatic eDetecta analysis. Agreement between endocrinologists and eDetecta varied depending on the patterns, with high level of agreement in patterns of glycemic variability. Further analysis of low level of agreement led to identifying areas where algorithms used could be improved to optimize trend pattern identification. Conclusion: eDetecta was a useful tool for glycemic pattern detection, helping clinicians to reduce time required to review emminens eConecta glycemic reports. No safety risks were identified during the study

The Burden of Progressive Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Disease: A DELPHI Approach

INTRODUCTION: The term progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) describes patients with fibrotic ILDs who, irrespective of the aetiology of the disease, show a progressive course of their disease despite current available (and non-licensed) treatment. Besides in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, little is known about management and the burden of patients with fibrotic ILD, particularly those with a progressive behaviour. METHODS: Using the Delphi method, 40 European experts in ILD management delivered information on management of (progressive) fibrosing ILD and on the impact of the disease on patients' quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU). Annual costs were calculated for progressive and non-/slow-progressive fibrosing ILD for diagnosis, follow-up management, exacerbation management, and end-of-life care based on the survey data. RESULTS: Physicians reported that progression in fibrosing ILD worsens QoL in both patients and their caregivers. Progression of fibrosing ILD was associated with a greater use of HCRU for follow-up visits and maintenance treatment compared with the non-/slow progression. The number of patients who suffered at least one acute exacerbation was reported to be more than three times higher in progressive fibrosing ILD patients than in patients with non-/slow-progressive fibrosing ILD. On average, annual estimated costs of progressive fibrosing ILD per patient were 1.8 times higher than those of the non-/slow-progressive form of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Progression in fibrosing ILD causes a significant impact on QoL and HCRU and costs. These survey data underline the need for safe and effective therapies to slow the disease progression.status: publishe