42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial pancreas treatment in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

          Data sources

          Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature up to 2 February 2018.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Randomised controlled trials in non-pregnant outpatients with type 1 diabetes that compared the use of any artificial pancreas system with any type of insulin based treatment. Primary outcome was proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was within the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes included proportion (%) of time that sensor glucose level was above 10 mmol/L or below 3.9 mmol/L, low blood glucose index overnight, mean sensor glucose level, total daily insulin needs, and glycated haemoglobin. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality.

          Results

          40 studies (1027 participants with data for 44 comparisons) were included in the meta-analysis. 35 comparisons assessed a single hormone artificial pancreas system, whereas nine comparisons assessed a dual hormone system. Only nine studies were at low risk of bias. Proportion of time in the near normoglycaemic range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was significantly higher with artificial pancreas use, both overnight (weighted mean difference 15.15%, 95% confidence interval 12.21% to 18.09%) and over a 24 hour period (9.62%, 7.54% to 11.7%). Artificial pancreas systems had a favourable effect on the proportion of time with sensor glucose level above 10 mmol/L (−8.52%, −11.14% to −5.9%) or below 3.9 mmol/L (−1.49%, −1.86% to −1.11%) over 24 hours, compared with control treatment. Robustness of findings for the primary outcome was verified in sensitivity analyses, by including only trials at low risk of bias (11.64%, 9.1% to 14.18%) or trials under unsupervised, normal living conditions (10.42%, 8.63% to 12.2%). Results were consistent in a subgroup analysis both for single hormone and dual hormone artificial pancreas systems.

          Conclusions

          Artificial pancreas systems are an efficacious and safe approach for treating outpatients with type 1 diabetes. The main limitations of current research evidence on artificial pancreas systems are related to inconsistency in outcome reporting, small sample size, and short follow-up duration of individual trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.

          The trim and fill method allows estimation of an adjusted meta-analysis estimate in the presence of publication bias. To date, the performance of the trim and fill method has had little assessment. In this paper, we provide a more comprehensive examination of different versions of the trim and fill method in a number of simulated meta-analysis scenarios, comparing results with those from usual unadjusted meta-analysis models and two simple alternatives, namely use of the estimate from: (i) the largest; or (ii) the most precise study in the meta-analysis. Findings suggest a great deal of variability in the performance of the different approaches. When there is large between-study heterogeneity the trim and fill method can underestimate the true positive effect when there is no publication bias. However, when publication bias is present the trim and fill method can give estimates that are less biased than the usual meta-analysis models. Although results suggest that the use of the estimate from the largest or most precise study seems a reasonable approach in the presence of publication bias, when between-study heterogeneity exists our simulations show that these estimates are quite biased. We conclude that in the presence of publication bias use of the trim and fill method can help to reduce the bias in pooled estimates, even though the performance of this method is not ideal. However, because we do not know whether funnel plot asymmetry is truly caused by publication bias, and because there is great variability in the performance of different trim and fill estimators and models in various meta-analysis scenarios, we recommend use of the trim and fill method as a form of sensitivity analysis as intended by the authors of the method. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes.

            Recently developed technologies for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus include a variety of pumps and pumps with glucose sensors. In this 1-year, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy (pump therapy) with that of a regimen of multiple daily insulin injections (injection therapy) in 485 patients (329 adults and 156 children) with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Patients received recombinant insulin analogues and were supervised by expert clinical teams. The primary end point was the change from the baseline glycated hemoglobin level. At 1 year, the baseline mean glycated hemoglobin level (8.3% in the two study groups) had decreased to 7.5% in the pump-therapy group, as compared with 8.1% in the injection-therapy group (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reached the glycated hemoglobin target (<7%) was greater in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group. The rate of severe hypoglycemia in the pump-therapy group (13.31 cases per 100 person-years) did not differ significantly from that in the injection-therapy group (13.48 per 100 person-years, P=0.58). There was no significant weight gain in either group. In both adults and children with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes, sensor-augmented pump therapy resulted in significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin levels, as compared with injection therapy. A significantly greater proportion of both adults and children in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group reached the target glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by Medtronic and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00417989.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outpatient glycemic control with a bionic pancreas in type 1 diabetes.

              The safety and effectiveness of automated glycemic management have not been tested in multiday studies under unrestricted outpatient conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: lecturer
                Role: consultant
                Role: consultant diabetologist
                Role: clinical research fellow
                Role: doctoral research fellow
                Role: doctoral research fellow
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: professor
                Role: associate professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2018
                18 April 2018
                : 361
                : k1310
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece
                [2 ]Diabetes Centre, Second Medical Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
                [3 ]Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [4 ]Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
                [5 ]Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A Tsapas atsapas@ 123456auth.gr
                Article
                beke039000
                10.1136/bmj.k1310
                5902803
                afb8256b-f987-46ab-8783-03bd50ca2e11
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 02 March 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article