User login
TOPLINE:
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems reduce diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia, improve quality of life, and increase awareness about hypoglycemia in adults, children, and adolescents with diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Despite the known benefits of AID systems for glycemic control, conclusive evidence on the impact of these devices on person-reported outcomes (PROs) has been limited.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies that reported the findings of 45 different quantitative questionnaires analyzed the effects of AID systems on various PROs in patients with diabetes.
- Studies were included if they reported the results of at least one PRO assessed via a validated questionnaire; no restrictions on populations were applied, such that studies could include individuals of all ages with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.
- Intervention groups in the original studies involved an AID system comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, and an algorithm controlling insulin delivery on the basis of CGM data. The control group, if included, involved non-AID systems such as multiple daily injections of insulin, standalone insulin pump therapy, or others.
- The main outcomes studied were diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycemia, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- Meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a significant reduction in diabetes distress with the use of AID systems vs non-AID systems (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.159; P = .0322).
- Fear of hypoglycemia, as assessed by the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II in up to 16 RCTs, was significantly reduced in participants using AID systems (SMD, −0.339; P = .0005); AID systems also improved awareness about hypoglycemia, as determined from analysis of four RCTs (SMD, −0.231; P = .0193).
- Quality of life and pediatric quality of life scores at follow-up, as assessed in three and five RCTs, respectively, were higher for patients using AID systems than for those in the control group.
- The promising effects of AID systems on alleviating disease burden and improving quality of life outcomes were also evident from the observational studies included in this meta-analysis.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used by health technology assessment bodies and policy makers to inform reimbursement decisions for AID therapy and can also help to widen access to this diabetes technology,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timm Roos, Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. It was published online in eClinicalMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A large number of different questionnaires were used to assess PROs, leading to complexity in the analysis. The limited number of studies that could be pooled for some PROs suggests the need for more research with a uniform assessment of PROs. Finally, the inclusion of different generations of AID systems may have introduced bias in the observed effects on PROs.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any funding. Some authors reported receiving honoraria, consulting fees, travel support, and advisory board member fees as well as other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems reduce diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia, improve quality of life, and increase awareness about hypoglycemia in adults, children, and adolescents with diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Despite the known benefits of AID systems for glycemic control, conclusive evidence on the impact of these devices on person-reported outcomes (PROs) has been limited.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies that reported the findings of 45 different quantitative questionnaires analyzed the effects of AID systems on various PROs in patients with diabetes.
- Studies were included if they reported the results of at least one PRO assessed via a validated questionnaire; no restrictions on populations were applied, such that studies could include individuals of all ages with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.
- Intervention groups in the original studies involved an AID system comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, and an algorithm controlling insulin delivery on the basis of CGM data. The control group, if included, involved non-AID systems such as multiple daily injections of insulin, standalone insulin pump therapy, or others.
- The main outcomes studied were diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycemia, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- Meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a significant reduction in diabetes distress with the use of AID systems vs non-AID systems (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.159; P = .0322).
- Fear of hypoglycemia, as assessed by the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II in up to 16 RCTs, was significantly reduced in participants using AID systems (SMD, −0.339; P = .0005); AID systems also improved awareness about hypoglycemia, as determined from analysis of four RCTs (SMD, −0.231; P = .0193).
- Quality of life and pediatric quality of life scores at follow-up, as assessed in three and five RCTs, respectively, were higher for patients using AID systems than for those in the control group.
- The promising effects of AID systems on alleviating disease burden and improving quality of life outcomes were also evident from the observational studies included in this meta-analysis.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used by health technology assessment bodies and policy makers to inform reimbursement decisions for AID therapy and can also help to widen access to this diabetes technology,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timm Roos, Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. It was published online in eClinicalMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A large number of different questionnaires were used to assess PROs, leading to complexity in the analysis. The limited number of studies that could be pooled for some PROs suggests the need for more research with a uniform assessment of PROs. Finally, the inclusion of different generations of AID systems may have introduced bias in the observed effects on PROs.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any funding. Some authors reported receiving honoraria, consulting fees, travel support, and advisory board member fees as well as other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems reduce diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia, improve quality of life, and increase awareness about hypoglycemia in adults, children, and adolescents with diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Despite the known benefits of AID systems for glycemic control, conclusive evidence on the impact of these devices on person-reported outcomes (PROs) has been limited.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies that reported the findings of 45 different quantitative questionnaires analyzed the effects of AID systems on various PROs in patients with diabetes.
- Studies were included if they reported the results of at least one PRO assessed via a validated questionnaire; no restrictions on populations were applied, such that studies could include individuals of all ages with type 1 diabetes or adults with type 2 diabetes.
- Intervention groups in the original studies involved an AID system comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, and an algorithm controlling insulin delivery on the basis of CGM data. The control group, if included, involved non-AID systems such as multiple daily injections of insulin, standalone insulin pump therapy, or others.
- The main outcomes studied were diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycemia, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- Meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found a significant reduction in diabetes distress with the use of AID systems vs non-AID systems (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.159; P = .0322).
- Fear of hypoglycemia, as assessed by the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II in up to 16 RCTs, was significantly reduced in participants using AID systems (SMD, −0.339; P = .0005); AID systems also improved awareness about hypoglycemia, as determined from analysis of four RCTs (SMD, −0.231; P = .0193).
- Quality of life and pediatric quality of life scores at follow-up, as assessed in three and five RCTs, respectively, were higher for patients using AID systems than for those in the control group.
- The promising effects of AID systems on alleviating disease burden and improving quality of life outcomes were also evident from the observational studies included in this meta-analysis.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings can be used by health technology assessment bodies and policy makers to inform reimbursement decisions for AID therapy and can also help to widen access to this diabetes technology,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timm Roos, Research Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. It was published online in eClinicalMedicine.
LIMITATIONS:
A large number of different questionnaires were used to assess PROs, leading to complexity in the analysis. The limited number of studies that could be pooled for some PROs suggests the need for more research with a uniform assessment of PROs. Finally, the inclusion of different generations of AID systems may have introduced bias in the observed effects on PROs.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any funding. Some authors reported receiving honoraria, consulting fees, travel support, and advisory board member fees as well as other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version this article first appeared on Medscape.com.