Towards the standardisation of adult person-reported outcome domains in diabetes research: A Consensus Statement development panel

Clinical evidence for high-risk CE-marked medical devices for glucose management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis, within the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, evaluating CE-marked high-risk devices for glucose management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified interventional and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of eight automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, two implantable insulin pumps, and three implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AID systems with other treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 182 studies published between 2009 and 2024 were included, comprising 166 studies on AID systems, six on insulin pumps, and 10 on CGM devices; 26% reported industry funding; 18% were pre-market; 37% had a comparator group. Of the studies identified, 29% were RCTs, 24% were non-randomized trials, and 47% were observational studies. The median (interquartile range) sample size was 48 (28-102), age 34.8 (14-44.2) years, and study duration 17.5 (12-26) weeks. AID systems lowered glycated haemoglobin by 0.5 percentage points (absolute mean difference [MD] = -0.5; 21 RCTs; I2 = 86%) and increased time in target range for sensor glucose level by 13.4 percentage points (MD = 13.4; 14 RCTs; I2 = 90%). At least one safety outcome was assessed in 71% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk devices for glucose monitoring or insulin dosing, in particular AID systems, improve glucose control safely, but evidence on diabetes-related end-organ damage is lacking due to short study durations. Methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for developing standards for future pre- and post-market investigations of diabetes-specific high-risk medical devices.

Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conclusive evidence on the benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems on person-reported outcomes (PROs) is missing.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and GoogleScholar) were searched from inception up to August 7th, 2024. All types of studies were included if studies reported on PROs in people with diabetes using an AID system. All types of control groups in randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Summary data were extracted by three reviewers. Main outcomes focused on diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycaemia and quality of life. Meta-analyses were conducted for RCTs and observational studies separately. When five or more studies could be pooled, random-effects meta-analysis was used, otherwise common-effects meta-analysis was used. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tools. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352502.

Findings

A total of 62 studies (n = 9253) were included reporting on 45 different questionnaires. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs and 25 were observational studies. RCT meta-analyses showed reduced diabetes distress (standardised mean difference [95% CI]: -0.159 [-0.309, -0.010], I2 = 23.0%), reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.339 [-0.566, -0.111], I2 = 42.6%), and improved hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.231 [-0.424, -0.037], I2 = 0.0%), quality of life in adults (0.347 [0.134, 0.560], I2 = 0.0%) and children/adolescents (0.249 [0.050, 0.448], I2 = 0.0%). Observational meta-analyses corroborated improvements in diabetes distress (-0.217 [-0.403, -0.031], I2 = 68.5%), fear of hypoglycaemia (-0.445 [-0.540, -0.349], I2 = 0.0%), hypoglycaemia unawareness (-0.212 [-0.419, -0.004], I2 = 0.0%), and showed improved sleep quality (-0.158 [-0.255, -0.061], I2 = 0.0%).

Interpretation

We found low to moderate effect sizes indicating that AID therapy is associated with reduced burden and improved well-being in people with diabetes. Evidence comes from both RCTs and observational studies. However, for some PROs only a limited number of studies could be pooled with a large heterogeneity in questionnaires used. More research is needed with a more uniformed assessment of PROs to demonstrate the added value of AID therapy on psychosocial outcomes.

Funding

None.

Person-reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs

AIM

Recently, efforts have been made to use and report person-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Here, we aim to (1) assess the status of inclusion of PROs in registered RCTs over 5 years in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and (2) map the PRO measures (PROMs) onto predefined domains.

METHODS

The largest trial registries (Clinicatrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Platform and ISRCTN) were systematically searched for RCTs in people with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes of all ages between 2018 and 2023. Coding of PROs comprised: (1) PRO measure(s) included yes or no; if yes: (2) PRO(s) as primary outcome yes or no; and (3) mapping PROMs onto predefined PRO domains and per type of intervention.

RESULTS

N = 1543 trials met our inclusion criteria, of which n = 673 (44%) included PROs, assessed by 545 different measures. Twenty per cent of drug trials (n = 112) and 71% of behavioural interventions (n = 405) included PROs. In 149 trials (9.6%), a PRO was the primary outcome. The psychological functioning domain was most often assessed across all trials (21.6%), specifically in behavioural (44.8%) and medical device interventions (29.7%). In drug trials, the physical functioning and functional health domain was most included (9%). Across all trials, the social and family functioning domain was least assessed (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

We noticed an increase in the inclusion of PROs in diabetes RCTs. However, PROs are rarely included as primary outcomes in the majority of studies, particularly in drug trials. The heterogeneity of PROMs used in RCTs underscores the need for standardisation of PROs.

Patient-reported outcomes in studies of diabetes technology: What matters

In recent years, diabetes technologies have revolutionized the care of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Emerging evidence suggests that people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can experience similar benefits from these advances in technology. While glycaemic outcomes are often a primary focus, the lived experience of the person with diabetes is equally important. In this review, we describe the impact of diabetes technologies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We highlight that most of the published studies investigated PROMs as secondary outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring systems may have an important role in improving PROMs in individuals with T1D, which may be driven by the prevention or proactive management of hypoglycaemia. In people with T2D, continuous glucose monitoring may also have an important role in improving PROMs, particularly in those treated with insulin therapy. The impact of insulin pumps on PROMs seems positive in T1D, while there is limited evidence in T2D. Studies of hybrid closed-loop therapies suggest increased treatment satisfaction, improved quality of life and decreased diabetes-related distress in T1D, but it is unclear whether these benefits are because of a 'class-effect' or individual systems. We conclude that PROMs deserve a more central role in trials and clinical practice, and we discuss directions for future research.