Guideline Development for Medical Device Technology: Issues for Consideration

Insights from home parenteral nutrition infusion data

OBJECTIVE

Patients with chronic intestinal failure use home parenteral nutrition infusion support. Non-compliance of home parenteral nutrition treatment is well documented, especially if clinical resources are remote. Objective delivery data from Infusion Pump reports have the potential to support treatment progress and planning. The aim of this study was to report the efficacy and accuracy of the Eitan Insights digital health platform for home parenteral nutrition use (a platform providing data-driven insights from the pump-recorded data).

METHODS

A prospective, single-center observational study of 20 patients treated with home parenteral nutrition ≥3 d/wk was conducted over 2022. The patients recorded the pre- and postinfusion home parenteral nutrition bag weight, duration of infusion, and alarms. We compared manual records to the pump data. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 45 data sets were collected, with no adverse events noted. In multiple comparisons between patient factors and descriptive statistics, there was no significant difference between manually recorded and pump-recorded data for volume infused (mean values of manual versus pump were 1707 ± 362 mL and 1708 ± 405 mL; P = 0.939) and infusion duration (mean values of manual versus pump iwere 9h 43 min ± 2.48 SD versus 9h 45 min ± 2.41 SD; P = 0.858).

CONCLUSION

The data collected by the digital platform accurately reflect patients' infusion data. This connected device has the potential to allow clinicians to be more informed and assess treatment trends and proactive resource planning through the Infusion Pump data insights.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Noninsulin-Treated People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has shown favorable outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are on insulin therapy. However, the efficacy of CGM in managing glucose levels in noninsulin-treated people with T2D remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGM to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with T2D not using insulin. We computed weighted mean differences (WMDs) and standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.3. Results: We included six RCTs comprising 407 noninsulin-treated people with T2D of whom 228 were randomized to CGM. Diabetes duration ranged from 5.4 to 13.9 years. The mean age was 57.9 years and the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m2. Four trials used real-time CGM (rt-CGM) and two intermittent scanning CGM (is-CGM). Compared with SMBG, CGM significantly reduced the glycated hemoglobin level (WMD -0.31%; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.21; I2 = 0%), glucose level (WMD -11.16 mg/dL; 95% CI -19.94 to -2.39; I2 = 0%), time in hypoglycemia level 2 (WMD -0.28%; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.03; I2 = 91%), glucose time >180 mg/dL (WMD -7.75%; 95% CI -12.04 to -3.45; I2 = 0%), and the standard deviation of glucose variation (WMD -4.00 mg/dL; 95% CI -6.86 to -1.14; I2 = 0%). CGM also increased time in range (WMD 8.63%; 95% CI 4.54-12.71; I2 = 0%) and treatment satisfaction (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.54-1.05; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, rt-CGM and is-CGM were associated with improvement in glycemic control in people with T2D not using insulin when compared to SMBG.