Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, Section of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Andrology and Metabolic Diseases, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Department of Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024 Sep;40(6):e3842. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3842.
To compare the efficacy and safety of different hybrid closed loop (HCL) systems in people with diabetes through a network meta-analysis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling children, adolescents and/or adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, evaluating Minimed 670G, Minimed 780G, Control-IQ, CamAPS Fx, DBLG-1, DBLHU, and Omnipod 5 HCL systems against other types of insulin therapy, and reporting time in target range (TIR) as outcome.
A total of 28 RCTs, all enrolling people with type 1 diabetes, were included. HCL systems significantly increased TIR compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy without continuous glucose monitoring (SIT). Minimed 780G achieved the highest TIR ahead of Control IQ (mean difference (MD) 5.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.68; 9.52], low certainty), Minimed 670G (MD 7.48%, 95% CI [4.27; 10.7], moderate certainty), CamAPS Fx (MD 8.94%, 95% CI [4.35; 13.54], low certainty), and DBLG1 (MD 10.69%, 95% CI [5.73; 15.65], low certainty). All HCL systems decreased time below target range, with DBLG1 (MD -3.69%, 95% CI [-5.2; -2.19], high certainty), Minimed 670G (MD -2.9%, 95% CI [-3.77; -2.04], moderate certainty) and Minimed 780G (MD -2.79%, 95% CI [-3.94; -1.64], high certainty) exhibiting the largest reductions compared to SIT. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis was similar to other types of insulin therapy.
We show a hierarchy of efficacy among the different HCL systems in people with type 1 diabetes, thus providing support to clinical decision-making.
PROSPERO CRD42023453717.
通过网络荟萃分析比较不同混合闭环(HCL)系统在糖尿病患者中的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTRAL 和 PubMed 中的随机临床试验(RCT),纳入了 1 型或 2 型糖尿病的儿童、青少年和/或成人患者,评估了 Minimed 670G、Minimed 780G、Control-IQ、CamAPS Fx、DBLG-1、DBLGHU 和 Omnipod 5 HCL 系统与其他类型胰岛素治疗的比较,并以目标范围内时间(TIR)作为结局。
共纳入 28 项 RCT,均纳入 1 型糖尿病患者。HCL 系统与无连续血糖监测的皮下胰岛素治疗(SIT)相比,显著增加了 TIR。Minimed 780G 优于 Control IQ(平均差值(MD)5.1%,95%置信区间(95%CI)[0.68;9.52],低确定性),Minimed 670G(MD 7.48%,95%CI[4.27;10.7],中等确定性),CamAPS Fx(MD 8.94%,95%CI[4.35;13.54],低确定性)和 DBLG1(MD 10.69%,95%CI[5.73;15.65],低确定性)。所有 HCL 系统均减少了低于目标范围的时间,其中 DBLG1(MD-3.69%,95%CI[-5.2; -2.19],高确定性)、Minimed 670G(MD-2.9%,95%CI[-3.77; -2.04],中等确定性)和 Minimed 780G(MD-2.79%,95%CI[-3.94; -1.64],高确定性)与 SIT 相比,降低幅度最大。严重低血糖和糖尿病酮症酸中毒的风险与其他类型的胰岛素治疗相似。
我们在 1 型糖尿病患者中展示了不同 HCL 系统的疗效等级,从而为临床决策提供支持。
PROSPERO CRD42023453717。