Efficacy and Safety of a Decision Support Intervention for Basal Insulin Self-Titration Assisted by the Nurse in Outpatients with T2DM: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Time for Using Machine Learning for Dose Guidance in Titration of People With Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review of Basal Insulin Dose Guidance

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown insufficient dose adjustment during basal insulin titration in clinical practice leading to suboptimal treatment. Thus, 60% of people with T2D treated with insulin do not reach glycemic targets. This emphasizes a need for methods supporting efficient and individualized basal insulin titration of people with T2D. However, no systematic review of basal insulin dose guidance for people with T2D has been found.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of basal insulin dose guidance methods that support titration of people with T2D and categorize these methods by characteristics, effect, and user experience.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies about basal insulin dose guidance, including adults with T2D on basal insulin analogs published before September 7, 2022, were included. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

In total, 35 studies were included, and three categories of dose guidance were identified: paper-based titration algorithms, telehealth solutions, and mathematical models. Heterogeneous reporting of glycemic outcomes challenged comparison of effect between the three categories. Few studies assessed user experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies mainly used titration algorithms to titrate basal insulin as telehealth or in paper format, except for studies using mathematical models. A numerically larger proportion of participants seemed to reach target using telehealth solutions compared to paper-based titration algorithms. Exploring capabilities of machine learning may provide insights that could pioneer future research while focusing on holistic development.

Clinical perspectives on the frequency of hypoglycemia in treat-to-target randomized controlled trials comparing basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes: a narrative review

The objective of this review was to comprehensively present and summarize trends in reported rates of hypoglycemia with one or two times per day basal insulin analogs in individuals with type 2 diabetes to help address and contextualize the emerging theoretical concern of increased hypoglycemic risk with once-weekly basal insulins.Hypoglycemia data were extracted from treat-to-target randomized clinical trials conducted during 2000-2022. Published articles were identified on PubMed or within the US Food and Drug Administration submission documents. Overall, 57 articles were identified: 44 assessed hypoglycemic outcomes in participants receiving basal-only therapy (33 in insulin-naive participants; 11 in insulin-experienced participants), 4 in a mixed population (insulin-naive and insulin-experienced participants) and 9 in participants receiving basal-bolus therapy. For the analysis, emphasis was placed on level 2 (blood glucose <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL)) and level 3 (or severe) hypoglycemia.Overall, event rates for level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemia across most studies ranged from 0.06 to 7.10 events/person-year of exposure (PYE) for participants receiving a basal-only insulin regimen; the rate for basal-bolus regimens ranged from 2.4 to 13.6 events/PYE. Rates were generally lower with second-generation basal insulins (insulin degludec or insulin glargine U300) than with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or first-generation basal insulins (insulin detemir or insulin glargine U100). Subgroup categorization by sulfonylurea usage, end-of-treatment insulin dose or glycated hemoglobin reduction did not show consistent trends on overall hypoglycemia rates. Hypoglycemia rates reported so far for once-weekly basal insulins are consistent with or lower than those reported for daily-administered basal insulin analogs.

Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The effect of shared decision-making (SDM) and the extent of its use in interventions to improve cardiovascular risk remain unclear.

Objective

To assess the extent to which SDM is used in interventions aimed to enhance the management of cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the association of SDM with decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factors, and health behaviors.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted in the Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published from inception to June 24, 2022, without language restrictions.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SDM-based interventions with standard of care for cardiovascular risk factor management were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The systematic search resulted in 9365 references. Duplicates were removed, and 2 independent reviewers screened the trials (title, abstract, and full text) and extracted data. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Decisional outcomes, cardiovascular risk factor outcomes, and health behavioral outcomes.

Results

This review included 57 RCTs with 88 578 patients and 1341 clinicians. A total of 59 articles were included, as 2 RCTs were reported twice. Nearly half of the studies (29 [49.2%]) tested interventions that targeted both patients and clinicians, and an equal number (29 [49.2%]) exclusively focused on patients. More than half (32 [54.2%]) focused on diabetes management, and one-quarter focused on multiple cardiovascular risk factors (14 [23.7%]). Most studies (35 [59.3%]) assessed cardiovascular risk factors and health behaviors as well as decisional outcomes. The quality of studies reviewed was low to fair. The SDM intervention was associated with a decrease of 4.21 points (95% CI, -8.21 to -0.21) in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (9 trials; I2 = 85.6%) and a decrease of 0.20% (95% CI, -0.39% to -0.01%) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (18 trials; I2 = 84.2%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current state of research on SDM interventions for cardiovascular risk management, there was a slight reduction in decisional conflict and an improvement in HbA1c levels with substantial heterogeneity. High-quality studies are needed to inform the use of SDM to improve cardiovascular risk management.

The Effect of Diabetes Management Shared Care Clinic on Glycated Hemoglobin A1c Compliance and Self-Management Abilities in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective

We aim to evaluate the impact of diabetes management shared care clinic (DMSCC) on glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) compliance and self-management abilities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

This study was a prospective cohort study of patients with T2DM participating in the DMSCC. At baseline and after management, the HbA1c levels were measured, the HbA1c compliance rate were calculated, and the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities-6 (SDSCA-6), Diabetes Empowerment Scale-DAWN Short Form (DES-DSF), and Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale-Five-item Short Form (PAID-5) were completed. These pre- and post-management data were compared.

Results

A total of 124 eligible patients were enrolled. After the diabetes management of DMSCC, the average HbA1c decreased and the HbA1c compliance rate increased significantly (P < 0.01). SDSCA-6 showed significant improvement in physical activity, glycemic monitoring, smoking (P < 0.01), and taking medication (P < 0.05). DES-DSF suggested a greater willingness to try to effectively treat diabetes (P < 0.05). PAID-5 indicated significant improvement in diabetes-related emotional distress.

Conclusion

DMSCC can help patients with T2DM reduce HbA1c, increase HbA1c compliance, improve diabetes self-management behaviors, empowerment, and diabetes-related emotional distress and serve as an effective exploration and practice of diabetes self-management education and support.

Device-supported automated basal insulin titration in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Technological advances make it possible to use device-supported, automated algorithms to aid basal insulin (BI) dosing titration in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of automated BI titration versus conventional care. The literature in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases from January 2000 to February 2022 were searched to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Findings

Six of the 7 eligible studies (889 patients) were included in meta-analyses. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that patients who use automated BI titration versus conventional care may have a higher probability of reaching a target of HbA_1c <7.0% (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]); and a lower level of HbA_1c (MD, -0.25% [95% CI, -0.43 to -0.06%]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in fasting glucose results, incidences of hypoglycemia, severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia, and quality of life, with low to very low certainty for all the evidence.

Interpretation

Automated BI titration is associated with small benefits in reducing HbA_1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Future studies should explore patient attitudes and the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

Funding

Sponsored by the Chinese Geriatric Endocrine Society.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.