Alfonso Galderisi1, Matteo Bruschettini2,3, Chiara Russo4, Rebecka Hall5, Daniele Trevisanuto6. 1. Pediatrics Endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 3. Cochrane Sweden, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 4. University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 5. Informatics and Technology (IT) Services Department, Cochrane Central Executive, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Woman's and Child's Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are susceptible to hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, conditions which may lead to adverse neurodevelopment. The use of continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM) might help keeping glucose levels in the normal range, and reduce the need for blood sampling. However, the use of CGM might be associated with harms in the preterm infant. OBJECTIVES: Objective one: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM alone versus standard method of glycemic measure in preterm infants. Objective two: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM with automated algorithm versus standard method of glycemic measure in preterm infants. Objective three: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM with automated algorithm versus CGM without automated algorithm in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We adopted the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 September 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 September 2020); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 25 September 2020). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants comparing: 1) the use of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycemia (comparison 1); or CGM associated with prespecified interventions to correct hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia versus CGM without such prespecified interventions (comparison 2). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials enrolling 138 infants met our inclusion criteria. Investigators in three trials (118 infants) compared the use of CGM to intermittent modalities (comparison one); however one of these trials was analyzed separately because CGM was used as a standalone device, without being coupled to a control algorithm like in the other trials. A fourth trial (20 infants) assessed CGM with an automated algorithm versus CGM with a manual algorithm. None of the four included trials reported the neurodevelopmental outcome, i.e. the primary outcome of this review. Within comparison one, the certainty of the evidence on the use of CGM on mortality during hospitalization is very uncertain (typical RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; typical RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.14; 50 participants; 1 study; very low certainty). The number of hypoglycemic episodes was reported in two studies with conflicting data. The number of hyperglycemic episodes was reported in one study (typical MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.04; 50 participants; 1 study). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes because of limitations in study design, and imprecision of estimates. Three studies are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine if CGM improves preterm infant mortality or morbidities. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Clinical trials are required to determine the most effective CGM and glycemic management regimens in preterm infants before larger studies can be performed to assess the efficacy of CGM for reducing mortality, morbidity and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments. The absence of CGM labelled for neonatal use is still a major limit in its use as well as the absence of dedicated neonatal devices.
BACKGROUND: Preterm infants are susceptible to hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, conditions which may lead to adverse neurodevelopment. The use of continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGM) might help keeping glucose levels in the normal range, and reduce the need for blood sampling. However, the use of CGM might be associated with harms in the preterm infant. OBJECTIVES: Objective one: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM alone versus standard method of glycemic measure in preterm infants. Objective two: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM with automated algorithm versus standard method of glycemic measure in preterm infants. Objective three: to assess the benefits and harms of CGM with automated algorithm versus CGM without automated algorithm in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We adopted the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 25 September 2020); Embase (1980 to 25 September 2020); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 25 September 2020). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants comparing: 1) the use of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycemia (comparison 1); or CGM associated with prespecified interventions to correct hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia versus CGM without such prespecified interventions (comparison 2). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials enrolling 138 infants met our inclusion criteria. Investigators in three trials (118 infants) compared the use of CGM to intermittent modalities (comparison one); however one of these trials was analyzed separately because CGM was used as a standalone device, without being coupled to a control algorithm like in the other trials. A fourth trial (20 infants) assessed CGM with an automated algorithm versus CGM with a manual algorithm. None of the four included trials reported the neurodevelopmental outcome, i.e. the primary outcome of this review. Within comparison one, the certainty of the evidence on the use of CGM on mortality during hospitalization is very uncertain (typical RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.30; typical RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.14; 50 participants; 1 study; very low certainty). The number of hypoglycemic episodes was reported in two studies with conflicting data. The number of hyperglycemic episodes was reported in one study (typical MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.04; 50 participants; 1 study). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes because of limitations in study design, and imprecision of estimates. Three studies are ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine if CGM improves preterm infant mortality or morbidities. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Clinical trials are required to determine the most effective CGM and glycemic management regimens in preterm infants before larger studies can be performed to assess the efficacy of CGM for reducing mortality, morbidity and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments. The absence of CGM labelled for neonatal use is still a major limit in its use as well as the absence of dedicated neonatal devices.
Authors: Richard A Ehrenkranz; Michele C Walsh; Betty R Vohr; Alan H Jobe; Linda L Wright; Avroy A Fanaroff; Lisa A Wrage; Kenneth Poole Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: L G Cornette; S F Tanner; L A Ramenghi; L S Miall; A M Childs; R J Arthur; D Martinez; M I Levene Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Catherine Limperopoulos; Haim Bassan; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Richard L Robertson; Nancy R Sullivan; Carol B Benson; Lauren Avery; Jane Stewart; Janet S Soul; Steven A Ringer; Joseph J Volpe; Adré J duPlessis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Anna Catherine Tottman; Jane Marie Alsweiler; Frank Harry Bloomfield; Greg Gamble; Yannan Jiang; Myra Leung; Tanya Poppe; Benjamin Thompson; Trecia Ann Wouldes; Jane Elizabeth Harding Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: K Beardsall; S Vanhaesebrouck; A L Ogilvy-Stuart; C Vanhole; M VanWeissenbruch; P Midgley; M Thio; L Cornette; I Ossuetta; C R Palmer; I Iglesias; M de Jong; B Gill; F de Zegher; D B Dunger Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Emma Persad; Greta Sibrecht; Martin Ringsten; Simon Karlelid; Olga Romantsik; Tommy Ulinder; Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento; Maria Björklund; Anneliese Arno; Matteo Bruschettini Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240