Anthony Pease1,2, Clement Lo1,2, Arul Earnest1, Velislava Kiriakova2, Danny Liew1,3, Sophia Zoungas4,2,3. 1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Sophia.Zoungas@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time in range is a key glycemic metric, and comparisons of management technologies for this outcome are critical to guide device selection. PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank technologies for time in glycemic ranges. DATA SOURCES: We searched Evidenced-Based Medicine Reviews, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PROSPERO, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science until 24 April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials ≥2 weeks' duration comparing technologies for management of type 1 diabetes in adults (≥18 years of age), excluding pregnant women. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using a predefined template. Outcomes were percent time with sensor glucose levels 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL), >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 16,772 publications, of which 14 eligible studies compared eight technologies comprising 1,043 participants. Closed-loop systems led to greater percent time in range than any other management strategy, and mean percent time in range was 17.85 (95% predictive interval 7.56-28.14) longer than with usual care of multiple daily injections with capillary glucose testing. Closed-loop systems ranked best for percent time in range or above range with use of Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) (98.5% and 93.5%, respectively). Closed-loop systems also ranked highly for time below range (SUCRA 62.2%). LIMITATIONS: Overall risk of bias ratings were moderate for all outcomes. Certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In the first integrated comparison of multiple management strategies considering time in range, we found that the efficacy of closed-loop systems appeared better than all other approaches.
BACKGROUND: Time in range is a key glycemic metric, and comparisons of management technologies for this outcome are critical to guide device selection. PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank technologies for time in glycemic ranges. DATA SOURCES: We searched Evidenced-Based Medicine Reviews, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PROSPERO, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science until 24 April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials ≥2 weeks' duration comparing technologies for management of type 1 diabetes in adults (≥18 years of age), excluding pregnant women. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using a predefined template. Outcomes were percent time with sensor glucose levels 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL), >10.0 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 16,772 publications, of which 14 eligible studies compared eight technologies comprising 1,043 participants. Closed-loop systems led to greater percent time in range than any other management strategy, and mean percent time in range was 17.85 (95% predictive interval 7.56-28.14) longer than with usual care of multiple daily injections with capillary glucose testing. Closed-loop systems ranked best for percent time in range or above range with use of Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) (98.5% and 93.5%, respectively). Closed-loop systems also ranked highly for time below range (SUCRA 62.2%). LIMITATIONS: Overall risk of bias ratings were moderate for all outcomes. Certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In the first integrated comparison of multiple management strategies considering time in range, we found that the efficacy of closed-loop systems appeared better than all other approaches.
Authors: Laya Ekhlaspour; Marissa Town; Dan Raghinaru; John W Lum; Sue A Brown; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 7.337
Authors: Maria J Redondo; Ingrid Libman; David M Maahs; Sarah K Lyons; Mindy Saraco; Jane Reusch; Henry Rodriguez; Linda A DiMeglio Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Chirath Hettiarachchi; Elena Daskalaki; Jane Desborough; Christopher J Nolan; David O'Neal; Hanna Suominen Journal: JMIR Diabetes Date: 2022-02-24