Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

01-12-2022 | Hyperglycemia | Protocol

Changes in glycaemic control of oral anti-diabetic medications assessed by continuous glucose monitors among patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol of network meta-analysis

Authors: Mingyue Zheng, Adeel Khoja, Anamica Patel, Yunting Luo, Qian He, Xuan Zhao, Shenqiao Yang, Peng Hu, Wei Lin

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide comprehensive real-time glucose profile among people with type 2 diabetes. These can accurately detect glucose levels, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia events compared with conventional self-monitoring. Increased application of CGMs provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate glucose control on oral anti-diabetic medications. This review will compare the efficacy and safety of oral anti-diabetic medications among patients with type 2 diabetes, evaluated by CGM.

Methods

The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature (ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycEXTRA, ProQuest Dissertations, Google Scholar and Theses Global) for the identification of studies. The review will include and summarise evidence from randomised clinical trials that use CGMs for blood glucose management in adults (aged ≥ 18 years), published in English between January 2000 and May 2021 without any restrictions of countries. Reference list of all selected articles will independently be screened to identify additional studies left out in the initial search. Primary outcomes will be HbA1c (≤ 7.0%), time spent with hypoglycaemia (< 70 mg/dl) or hyperglycaemia (≥ 180 mg/dl). Secondary outcomes will be change in weight, blood pressure and related comorbidities (cardiovascular mortality, heart failure events, myocardial infarction and stroke). Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be conducted independently by at least two reviewers. A third reviewer will determine and resolve discrepancies. At least two independent reviewers will cross-check data synthesis. The quality of evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Tool.

Discussion

The review is anticipated to provide up to date evidence for further studies and clinic practices regarding glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, and hyperglycaemia issues. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42020188399.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference ADA. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:S14–31.CrossRef ADA. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:S14–31.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Chaudhury A, et al. Clinical review of antidiabetic drugs: implications for type 2 diabetes mellitus management. Front Endocrinol. 2017;8:6.CrossRef Chaudhury A, et al. Clinical review of antidiabetic drugs: implications for type 2 diabetes mellitus management. Front Endocrinol. 2017;8:6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Tsapas A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):278.CrossRef Tsapas A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering drugs for type 2 diabetes a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):278.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Zozaya N, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2019;2019:2284240319876574. Zozaya N, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2019;2019:2284240319876574.
6.
go back to reference Stedman M, et al. The costs of drug prescriptions for diabetes in the NHS. Lancet. 2019;393(10168):226–7.CrossRef Stedman M, et al. The costs of drug prescriptions for diabetes in the NHS. Lancet. 2019;393(10168):226–7.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Snell-Bergeon JK, Wadwa RP. Hypoglycemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:S51–8.CrossRef Snell-Bergeon JK, Wadwa RP. Hypoglycemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:S51–8.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:S25–37.CrossRef Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:S25–37.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Shibusawa R, et al. The impact of short-term professional continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control via lifestyle improvement. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(9):628–31.CrossRef Shibusawa R, et al. The impact of short-term professional continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control via lifestyle improvement. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(9):628–31.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference McGill JB, Ahmann A. Continuous glucose monitoring with multiple daily insulin treatment: outcome studies. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:S3–12.CrossRef McGill JB, Ahmann A. Continuous glucose monitoring with multiple daily insulin treatment: outcome studies. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19:S3–12.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Henry RR, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on 24-hour glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(11):715–24.CrossRef Henry RR, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on 24-hour glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(11):715–24.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Palmer SC, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes a meta-analysis. Jama-J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316(3):313–24.CrossRef Palmer SC, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes a meta-analysis. Jama-J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316(3):313–24.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Vianna AGD, et al. Improved glycaemic variability and time in range with dapagliflozin versus gliclazide modified release among adults with type 2 diabetes, evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring: A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(4):501–11.CrossRef Vianna AGD, et al. Improved glycaemic variability and time in range with dapagliflozin versus gliclazide modified release among adults with type 2 diabetes, evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring: A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(4):501–11.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Pasquel FJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing glargine U300 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes: glargine U300 hospital trial. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(6):1242–8.CrossRef Pasquel FJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing glargine U300 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes: glargine U300 hospital trial. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(6):1242–8.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Liu SC, et al. Effect of antidiabetic agents added to metformin on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(9):810–20.CrossRef Liu SC, et al. Effect of antidiabetic agents added to metformin on glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(9):810–20.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:1.CrossRef Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:1.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hutton B, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRef Hutton B, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cefalu WT, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials in Type 2 Diabetes: Where Do We Go From Here? Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(1):14–31. Cefalu WT, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials in Type 2 Diabetes: Where Do We Go From Here? Reflections From a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(1):14–31.
20.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRef Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. Data extraction and synthesis the steps following study selection in a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(7):49–54.CrossRef Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. Data extraction and synthesis the steps following study selection in a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(7):49–54.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sterne JAC, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.CrossRef Sterne JAC, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Puhan, M.A., H.J. Schuenemann, and M.H. Murad, A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (vol 349, pg g5630, 2014). Bmj 2015. 350. Puhan, M.A., H.J. Schuenemann, and M.H. Murad, A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (vol 349, pg g5630, 2014). Bmj 2015. 350.
24.
go back to reference Salanti G, et al. Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis. Plos One. 2014;9(7):e99682.CrossRef Salanti G, et al. Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis. Plos One. 2014;9(7):e99682.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Cumpston M, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142.PubMed Cumpston M, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Jackson D, et al. A design-by-treatment interaction model for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. Stat Med. 2014;33(21):3639–54.CrossRef Jackson D, et al. A design-by-treatment interaction model for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. Stat Med. 2014;33(21):3639–54.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRef Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRef Higgins JPT, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Tufanaru C, et al. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):196–207.CrossRef Tufanaru C, et al. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):196–207.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Law M, et al. Two new methods to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:87.CrossRef Law M, et al. Two new methods to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:87.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Keus F, et al. Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:90.CrossRef Keus F, et al. Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:90.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Changes in glycaemic control of oral anti-diabetic medications assessed by continuous glucose monitors among patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol of network meta-analysis
Authors
Mingyue Zheng
Adeel Khoja
Anamica Patel
Yunting Luo
Qian He
Xuan Zhao
Shenqiao Yang
Peng Hu
Wei Lin
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01986-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue