Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review

Abstract

Aims To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person‐reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. Results T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor‐augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well‐being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow‐up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real‐world conditions. Conclusions PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia‐specific and diabetes‐specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.

Blood self-sampling: a missing link for remote patient care

“…In any case, blood remains the number one source of biomarkers, and we have seen in diabetes how the development of self-sampling can change patients' quality of life. 11 Until then, the motto is ‘Panta rhei’, everything is in flux—including self-sampled blood collection for immune-mediated diseases.…”

The impact of diabetes technology advances on quality of life: addressing the barriers to uptake

“…They examine a range of topics from general well‐being, through diabetes‐ specific concerns and, more recently, to experience of technology. PROMs, defined as ‘standardised, validated questionnaires completed directly by the individual living with the condition, enabling them to share their perceptions and experiences of the condition and/or its treatment’, 6 may also include qualitative processes such as focus groups and semi‐ structured interviews.…”

“…Quality of life measures are now incorporated into most trials of new technology, and a range of technology focused QoL questionnaires, for example the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) 9 and the Glucose Monitoring Experience Questionnaire (GME‐Q), 10 have been developed to reflect the advances. A recent narrative review 6 details the questionnaires used to document PROMs in randomised controlled trial (RCT) and cohort technology studies since 2014. Overall, technology had a positive effect on diabetes‐specific, but not generic, PROMs.…”

#We don't have to wait any more Closed-loop systems: transforming the landscape

“…There is growing evidence from qualitative evaluations of the psychosocial benefits associated with closed-loop systems, both for users and also for parents/caregivers and other family members. [18][19][20] Users describe generally positive experiences, with perceived benefits including reassurance and reduced anxiety, improved sleep and confidence, and the concept of 'time off' from diabetes demands. 19 While some studies report improved diabetes-specific psychosocial measures, including reduced diabetes distress, improved diabetes treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia, these findings have not been consistent and they differ depending on the underlying study population.…”