Impact of technology on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials on continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Issue 12 (13th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dicembrini, Ilaria; Mannucci, Edoardo; Monami, Matteo; Pala, Laura
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 21:Issue 12(2019)
• Page Start: 2619
• Page End: 2625
• Publication Date: 2019-09-13
• Subjects: CGM -- continuous glucose monitoring -- continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion -- CSII -- FGM -- flash glucose monitoring -- type 2 diabetes therapy; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.13845
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: To conduct a meta‐analysis to assess the effect of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and the combination of the two, on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. Materials and methods: The analysis included randomized clinical trials comparing CSII with multiple daily injections (MDI) in people with type 2 diabetes, as well as studies comparing CGM or flash glucose monitoring (FGM) with self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), with a duration of at least 12 weeks, identified in Medline or clinicaltrials.gov . The principal endpoint was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of the trial. Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HbA1c and Mantel–Haenzel odds ratios for severe hypoglycaemia were calculated, using random‐effect models. Results: The retrieved trials showed a significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 90%). The difference in HbA1c between CSII and MDI was not statistically significant (−0.26% [95% CI –0.74;0.22]; P = .29). The difference in endpoint HbA1c between CGM and SMBG was marginally significant (−0.24 [95% CI –0.49;0.00]; P = .05), and CGM was possibly associated with a lower hypoglycaemic risk. Only one trial explored the effect of FGM, as compared with SMBG, on HbA1c in type 2 diabetes, finding no difference across groups (at study end: 8.4% ± 0.8% vs 8.3% ± 1.1% with FGM and SMBG, respectively). Conversely, FGM was associated with an improvement in quality of life and with a lower incidence of hypoglycaemic events. The small number of retrieved trials indicates that the results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: The analysis showed that CSII, CGM and FGM provide only small benefits compared with MDI (on either HbA1c, hypoglycaemic risk or quality of life) in insulin‐treated people with type 2 diabetes.