EClinicalMedicine (Aug 2023)
Effect of diabetes technologies on the fear of hypoglycaemia among people living with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysisResearch in context
Abstract
Summary: Background: Fear of hypoglycaemia (FOH) significantly disrupts the daily management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and increases the risk of complications. Recent technological advances can improve glucose metrics and reduce hypoglycaemia frequency, yet their impact on FOH is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to synthesize the current literature to understand the impact of diabetes technologies on FOH in T1D. Methods: In this SRMA, we searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception up to May 21st, 2023 for studies assessing the effect of using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM or isCGM); insulin pumps (CSII); and their combinations on FOH as the primary outcome, measured using the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS; including total, worries [HFS-W], and behaviours [HFS-B] scores), in non-pregnant adults with T1D. Data was extracted by the first and second authors. Results were pooled using a random-effects model based on study design (RCT and non-RCT), with subgroup analysis based on the type of technology, reported change in hypoglycaemia frequency, and duration of use. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021253618. Findings: A total of 51 studies (n = 8966) were included, 22 of which were RCTs. Studies on rtCGM and CSII reported lower FOH levels with ≥8 weeks of use. Studies on CSII and rtCGM combinations reported lower FOH levels after ≥13 weeks of automated insulin delivery (AID) use or 26 weeks of sensor-augmented pump (SAP) use. The meta-analysis showed an overall lower FOH with technologies, specifically for the HFS-W subscale. The RCT meta-analysis showed lower HFS-W scores with rtCGM use (standard mean difference [95%CI]: −0.14 [−0.23, −0.05], I2 = 0%) and AID (−0.17 [−0.33, −0.01], I2 = 0%). Results from non-RCT studies show that SAP users (−0.33 [−0.38, −0.27], I2 = 0%) and rtCGM users (−0.38 [−0.61, −0.14], I2 = 0%) had lower HFS-W. Interpretation: We found consistent, yet small to moderate, effects supporting that diabetes technologies (specifically rtCGM, SAP, and AID) may reduce hypoglycaemia-related worries in adults with T1D. Current literature, however, has limitations including discrepancies in baseline characteristics and limited, mainly descriptive, statistical analysis. Thus, future studies should assess FOH as a primary outcome, use validated surveys, and appropriate statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical impacts of technology use beyond just glucose metrics. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Ltd.
