Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review

AIMS: To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person‐reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. RESULTS: T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor‐augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well‐being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow‐up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real‐world conditions. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.