Cargando…
Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials
AIMS: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) assessing separately and together the effect of the three distinct categories of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems (adjunctive, non‐adjunctive and intermittently‐scanned CGM [isC...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9542260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14854 |
_version_ | 1784804110652932096 |
---|---|
author | Elbalshy, Mona Haszard, Jillian Smith, Hazel Kuroko, Sarahmarie Galland, Barbara Oliver, Nick Shah, Viral de Bock, Martin I. Wheeler, Benjamin J. |
author_facet | Elbalshy, Mona Haszard, Jillian Smith, Hazel Kuroko, Sarahmarie Galland, Barbara Oliver, Nick Shah, Viral de Bock, Martin I. Wheeler, Benjamin J. |
author_sort | Elbalshy, Mona |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) assessing separately and together the effect of the three distinct categories of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems (adjunctive, non‐adjunctive and intermittently‐scanned CGM [isCGM]), compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring, on HbA1c and CGM metrics. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomised controlled trials; participants with type 1 diabetes of any age and insulin regimen; investigating CGM and isCGM compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring; and reporting glycaemic outcomes of HbA1c and/or time‐in‐range (TIR). Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post‐intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95%CIs between treatment and comparator groups. Results were pooled using a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Rob2 tool. RESULTS: This systematic review was conducted between January and April 2021; it included 22 RCTs (15 adjunctive, 5 non‐adjunctive, and 2 isCGM)). The overall analysis of the pooled three categories showed a statistically significant absolute improvement in HbA1c percentage points (mean difference (95% CI): −0.22% [−0.31 to −0.14], I (2) = 79%) for intervention compared with comparator and was strongest for adjunctive CGM (−0.26% [−0.36, −0.16]). Overall TIR (absolute change) increased by 5.4% (3.5 to 7.2), I (2 )= 71% for CGM intervention compared with comparator and was strongest with non‐adjunctive CGM (6.0% [2.3, 9.7]). CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with T1D, use of CGM was beneficial for impacting glycaemic outcomes including HbA1c, TIR and time‐below‐range (TBR). Glycaemic improvement appeared greater for TIR for newer non‐adjunctive CGM technology. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9542260 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95422602022-10-14 Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials Elbalshy, Mona Haszard, Jillian Smith, Hazel Kuroko, Sarahmarie Galland, Barbara Oliver, Nick Shah, Viral de Bock, Martin I. Wheeler, Benjamin J. Diabet Med Systematic Review or Meta‐analysis AIMS: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) assessing separately and together the effect of the three distinct categories of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems (adjunctive, non‐adjunctive and intermittently‐scanned CGM [isCGM]), compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring, on HbA1c and CGM metrics. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomised controlled trials; participants with type 1 diabetes of any age and insulin regimen; investigating CGM and isCGM compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring; and reporting glycaemic outcomes of HbA1c and/or time‐in‐range (TIR). Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post‐intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95%CIs between treatment and comparator groups. Results were pooled using a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Rob2 tool. RESULTS: This systematic review was conducted between January and April 2021; it included 22 RCTs (15 adjunctive, 5 non‐adjunctive, and 2 isCGM)). The overall analysis of the pooled three categories showed a statistically significant absolute improvement in HbA1c percentage points (mean difference (95% CI): −0.22% [−0.31 to −0.14], I (2) = 79%) for intervention compared with comparator and was strongest for adjunctive CGM (−0.26% [−0.36, −0.16]). Overall TIR (absolute change) increased by 5.4% (3.5 to 7.2), I (2 )= 71% for CGM intervention compared with comparator and was strongest with non‐adjunctive CGM (6.0% [2.3, 9.7]). CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with T1D, use of CGM was beneficial for impacting glycaemic outcomes including HbA1c, TIR and time‐below‐range (TBR). Glycaemic improvement appeared greater for TIR for newer non‐adjunctive CGM technology. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-25 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9542260/ /pubmed/35441743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14854 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review or Meta‐analysis Elbalshy, Mona Haszard, Jillian Smith, Hazel Kuroko, Sarahmarie Galland, Barbara Oliver, Nick Shah, Viral de Bock, Martin I. Wheeler, Benjamin J. Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title | Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title_full | Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title_short | Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
title_sort | effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials |
topic | Systematic Review or Meta‐analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9542260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35441743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14854 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elbalshymona effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT haszardjillian effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT smithhazel effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT kurokosarahmarie effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT gallandbarbara effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT olivernick effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT shahviral effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT debockmartini effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT wheelerbenjaminj effectofdivergentcontinuousglucosemonitoringtechnologiesonglycaemiccontrolintype1diabetesmellitusasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials |