Does fully closed‐loop automated insulin delivery improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes? A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims This meta‐analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of fully closed‐loop automated insulin delivery (AID) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods We systemically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception until April 26, 2023. We included ra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetic medicine 2024-01, Vol.41 (1), p.e15196-n/a
Main Authors: Amer, Basma Ehab, Yaqout, Yasmeen Essam, Abozaid, Ahmed Mohamed, Afifi, Eslam, Aboelkhier, Menna M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
AID
Automation
Blood Glucose
Clinical trials
Cross-Over Studies
Daytime
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - drug therapy
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - drug therapy
Glucose
Glycemic Control
Humans
hyperglycaemia
Hyperglycemia
Hyperglycemia - drug therapy
Hyperglycemia - prevention & control
hypoglycaemia
Hypoglycemia
Hypoglycemia - chemically induced
Hypoglycemia - drug therapy
Hypoglycemia - prevention & control
Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use
Insulin
Insulin - therapeutic use
Insulin Infusion Systems
Meta-analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
time in target
type 2 diabetes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims This meta‐analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of fully closed‐loop automated insulin delivery (AID) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods We systemically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception until April 26, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fully closed‐loop AID versus conventional insulin therapy. The outcomes were pooled as the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the random effect model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of time in the target glucose range (5.6‐10 mmol/L, 3.9‐10 mmol/L, or 3.9‐8 mmol/L, depending on the study). Key secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia. Results We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel design), compromising 390 patients. Our analysis showed that compared to the control group, fully closed‐loop AID increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range by additional 337 min per 24 h (MD = 23.39%, 95% CI [16.64%, 30.14%], p 
ISSN:0742-3071
1464-5491
DOI:10.1111/dme.15196