Vasilios Karageorgiou1, Theodoros G Papaioannou2, Ioannis Bellos1, Krystallenia Alexandraki3, Nikolaos Tentolouris4, Christodoulos Stefanadis5, George P Chrousos6, Dimitrios Tousoulis1. 1. First Department of Cardiology, Biomedical Engineering Unit, Hippokration Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 2. First Department of Cardiology, Biomedical Engineering Unit, Hippokration Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: thepap@med.uoa.gr. 3. Clinic of Endocrine Oncology, Section of Endocrinology, Department of Pathophysiology, Laiko Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. First Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Laiko General Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 5. MYSM School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 6. First Department of Pediatrics, Aghia Sophia Children's Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Artificial pancreas is a technology that minimizes user input by bridging continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump treatment, and has proven safety in the adult population. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of closed-loop (CL) systems in the glycemic control of non-adult type 1 diabetes patients in both a pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) context and investigate various parameters potentially affecting the outcome. METHODS: Literature was systematically searched using the MEDLINE (1966-2018), Scopus (2004-2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1999-2018), Clinicaltrials.gov (2008-2018) and Google Scholar (2004-2018) databases. Studies comparing the glycemic control in CL (either single- or dual-hormone) with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with diabetes (PWD) aged <18 years old were deemed eligible. The primary outcome analysis was conducted with regard to time spent in the target glycemic range. All outcomes were evaluated in NMA in order to investigate potential between-algorithm differences. Pairwise meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using the RevMan 5.3 and Open Meta-Analyst software. For NMA, the package pcnetmetain R 3.5.1 was used. RESULTS: The meta-analysis was based on 25 studies with a total of 504 PWD. The CL group was associated with significantly higher percentage of time spent in the target glycemic range (Mean (SD): 67.59% (SD: 8.07%) in the target range and OL PWD spending 55.77% (SD: 11.73%), MD: -11.97%, 95% CI [-18.40, -5.54%]) and with lower percentages of time in hyperglycemia (MD: 3.01%, 95% CI [1.68, 4.34%]) and hypoglycemia (MD: 0.67%, 95% CI [0.21, 1.13%]. Mean glucose was also decreased in the CL group (MD: 0.75 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.18-1.33]). The NMA arm of the study showed that the bihormonal modality was superior to other algorithms and standard treatment in lowering mean glucose and increasing time spent in the target range. The DiAs platform was superior to PID in controlling hypoglycemia and mean glucose. Time in target range and mean glucose were unaffected by the confounding factors tested. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that artificial pancreas systems are superior to the standard sensor-augmented pump treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus in non-adult PWD. Between-algorithm differences are also addressed, implying a superiority of the bihormonal treatment modality. Future large-scale studies are needed in the field to verify these outcomes and to determine the optimal algorithm to be used in the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE:Artificial pancreas is a technology that minimizes user input by bridging continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump treatment, and has proven safety in the adult population. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of closed-loop (CL) systems in the glycemic control of non-adult type 1 diabetespatients in both a pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) context and investigate various parameters potentially affecting the outcome. METHODS: Literature was systematically searched using the MEDLINE (1966-2018), Scopus (2004-2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1999-2018), Clinicaltrials.gov (2008-2018) and Google Scholar (2004-2018) databases. Studies comparing the glycemic control in CL (either single- or dual-hormone) with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with diabetes (PWD) aged <18 years old were deemed eligible. The primary outcome analysis was conducted with regard to time spent in the target glycemic range. All outcomes were evaluated in NMA in order to investigate potential between-algorithm differences. Pairwise meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using the RevMan 5.3 and Open Meta-Analyst software. For NMA, the package pcnetmetain R 3.5.1 was used. RESULTS: The meta-analysis was based on 25 studies with a total of 504 PWD. The CL group was associated with significantly higher percentage of time spent in the target glycemic range (Mean (SD): 67.59% (SD: 8.07%) in the target range and OL PWD spending 55.77% (SD: 11.73%), MD: -11.97%, 95% CI [-18.40, -5.54%]) and with lower percentages of time in hyperglycemia (MD: 3.01%, 95% CI [1.68, 4.34%]) and hypoglycemia (MD: 0.67%, 95% CI [0.21, 1.13%]. Mean glucose was also decreased in the CL group (MD: 0.75 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.18-1.33]). The NMA arm of the study showed that the bihormonal modality was superior to other algorithms and standard treatment in lowering mean glucose and increasing time spent in the target range. The DiAs platform was superior to PID in controlling hypoglycemia and mean glucose. Time in target range and mean glucose were unaffected by the confounding factors tested. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that artificial pancreas systems are superior to the standard sensor-augmented pump treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus in non-adult PWD. Between-algorithm differences are also addressed, implying a superiority of the bihormonal treatment modality. Future large-scale studies are needed in the field to verify these outcomes and to determine the optimal algorithm to be used in the clinical setting.
Authors: Sue A Brown; Boris P Kovatchev; Dan Raghinaru; John W Lum; Bruce A Buckingham; Yogish C Kudva; Lori M Laffel; Carol J Levy; Jordan E Pinsker; R Paul Wadwa; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Stacey M Anderson; Mei Mei Church; Vikash Dadlani; Laya Ekhlaspour; Gregory P Forlenza; Elvira Isganaitis; David W Lam; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernhard O Boehm; Nihal Thomas; Johannes W Dietrich; Riddhi Dasgupta; Shajith Anoop; Felix Jebasingh; Mathews E Kurian; Mercy Inbakumari Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Boris P Kovatchev; Laura Kollar; Stacey M Anderson; Charlotte Barnett; Marc D Breton; Kelly Carr; Rachel Gildersleeve; Mary C Oliveri; Christian A Wakeman; Sue A Brown Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2020-01-03
Authors: Moshe Phillip; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; Thomas Danne; Satish K Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Boris P Kovatchev; Lori M Laffel; Viswanathan Mohan; Christopher G Parkin; Tadej Battelino Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Grenye O'Malley; Laurel H Messer; Carol J Levy; Jordan E Pinsker; Gregory P Forlenza; Elvira Isganaitis; Yogish C Kudva; Laya Ekhlaspour; Dan Raghinaru; John Lum; Sue A Brown Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Max L Eckstein; Benjamin Weilguni; Martin Tauschmann; Rebecca T Zimmer; Faisal Aziz; Harald Sourij; Othmar Moser Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Eleonora M Aiello; Sunil Deshpande; Basak Ozaslan; Kelilah L Wolkowicz; Eyal Dassau; Jordan E Pinsker; Francis J Doyle Journal: Curr Opin Biomed Eng Date: 2021-06-18