Richard R Rubin1, Mark Peyrot. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. rrubin4@jhmi.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced diabetes technology should have benefits not only in terms of clinical outcomes, but also in terms of patient-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to review the methodology and findings of studies that assessed the effects of diabetes technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and integrated CSII/CGM on patientreported outcomes. DATA: The existing literature in pediatric and adult patients is limited, so there is no conclusive evidence that use of CSII, CGM, or integrated CSII/CGM systems produce improved patient-reported outcomes, but most studies provide evidence that these technologies yield some patient-reported outcomes advantages, and few indicate any disadvantages. CONCLUSION: We expect that more robust studies in the future will provide further evidence regarding the impact of these technologies for patient-reported outcomes, including general health-related quality-of-life, diabetesspecific quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference.
BACKGROUND: Advanced diabetes technology should have benefits not only in terms of clinical outcomes, but also in terms of patient-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to review the methodology and findings of studies that assessed the effects of diabetes technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and integrated CSII/CGM on patientreported outcomes. DATA: The existing literature in pediatric and adult patients is limited, so there is no conclusive evidence that use of CSII, CGM, or integrated CSII/CGM systems produce improved patient-reported outcomes, but most studies provide evidence that these technologies yield some patient-reported outcomes advantages, and few indicate any disadvantages. CONCLUSION: We expect that more robust studies in the future will provide further evidence regarding the impact of these technologies for patient-reported outcomes, including general health-related quality-of-life, diabetesspecific quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference.
Authors: T R S Hajos; F Pouwer; R de Grooth; F Holleman; J W R Twisk; M Diamant; F J Snoek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David White; Norman Waugh; Jackie Elliott; Julia Lawton; Katharine Barnard; Michael J Campbell; Simon Dixon; Simon Heller Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marisa E Hilliard; Persis V Commissariat; Lauren Kanapka; Lori M Laffel; Wendy Levy; Kara Harrington; Barbara J Anderson; Kellee M Miller; Linda A DiMeglio Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.409
Authors: Markus Laimer; Andreas Melmer; Julia K Mader; Ingrid Schütz-Fuhrmann; Heide-Rose Engels; Gabriele Götz; Martin Pfeifer; Julia M Hermann; Christoph Stettler; Reinhard W Holl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Louis S Matza; Kristina S Boye; Katie D Stewart; Rosirene Paczkowski; Jessica Jordan; Lindsey T Murray Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2018-09-12