Objective: Since the COVID-pandemic began, instead of in-office care alone, many institutions implemented hybrid care (in-office + telemedicine) . It is not known if hybrid care is as effective as in-office visits in regards to achieving glycemic goals.

Methods: Clinical characteristics of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (age ≥40 years) were retrieved from electronic health records from two periods: in-office model before the pandemic (April 2019-March 2020) and hybrid-care model during the pandemic (September 20pril 2021) . Patients were stratified by age.

Results: Overall, 1,820 patients were evaluated, 66% younger (40-64 years: mean age 52±7yrs, 52% female, 53% CGM users, 56% pump users) and 34% older (≥65 years: mean age 72±5yrs, 55% female, 53% CGM users, 38% pump users) . A1c using hybrid-care improved in both younger (7.8±1.2 vs. 7.6±1.2%; p=0.005) and older adults (7.6±0.9 vs. 7.4±1%; p=0.02) , compared to in-office care. Within the hybrid-care model period, poor glycemic control was associated with a higher number of hybrid visits, and more in-office missed appointments, while pump use was associated with lower A1c.

Conclusion: Compared with in-office care, hybrid care was effective at maintaining glycemic control in both younger and older adults with T1D. Prospective studies are needed to understand the use of hybrid-care for the management of adults with T1D.


E.Toschi: Consultant; Medtronic. A.Adam: None. C.Slyne: None. L.M.Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompé, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc. M.Munshi: Consultant; Sanofi.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.