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 HbA1c <7.0% (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]); and a lower level of HbA1c (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 HbA1c 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.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Use of basal insulin in the management of adults with type 2 diabetes: An Asia-Pacific evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

The objective of this study was to provide recommendations regarding effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins (glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, detemir, and insulin protamine Hagedorn) in insulin-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes in the Asia-Pacific region. Based on evidence from a systematic review, we developed an Asia-Pacific clinical practice guideline through comprehensive internal review and external review processes. We set up and used clinical thresholds of trivial, small, moderate, and large effects for different critical and important outcomes in the overall certainty of evidence assessment and balancing the magnitude of intervention effects when making recommendations, following GRADE methods (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). The AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) guideline reporting checklists were complied with. After the second-round vote by the working group members, all the recommendations and qualifying statements reached over 75% agreement rates. Among 44 contacted external reviewers, we received 33 clinicians' and one patient's comments. The overall response rate was 77%. To solve the four research questions, we made two strong recommendations, six conditional recommendations, and two qualifying statements. Although the intended users of this guideline focused on clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region, the eligible evidence was based on recent English publications. We believe that the recommendations and the clinical thresholds set up in the guideline can be references for clinicians who take care of patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide.

Which Bone-Modifying Agent is Associated with Better Outcomes in Patients with Skeletal Metastases from Lung Cancer? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Metastatic bone disease occurs in 20% to 40% of patients with lung cancer, and these patients often present with pain or skeletal-related events (SREs) that are associated with decreased survival. Bone-modifying agents such as denosumab or bisphosphonates are routinely used; however, to our knowledge, there has been no quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trial data to determine the most effective pharmacologic treatment of metastatic bone disease because of lung cancer. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis of randomized trials to identify the bone-modifying agent that is associated with the (1) highest overall survival, (2) longest time to SRE, (3) lowest SRE incidence, and (4) greatest likelihood of pain resolution. METHODS: We conducted our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol and pre-registered the analysis on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019124364). We performed a librarian-assisted search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data. We included randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes specifically for patients with lung cancer treated with a bisphosphonate or denosumab. SREs included pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, or pain resulting in surgical intervention or radiation therapy. We excluded trials exclusively reporting surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone turnover markers. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evaluations were performed in duplicate. We included 131 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 11,105 patients with skeletal metastases from lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist model and the R statistical software. Results are reported as relative risks or mean differences, and the I2 value is reported for heterogeneity. The P-score, a measure of ranking certainty that accounts for standard error, is reported for each outcome. Heterogeneity in the network was considered moderate for overall survival and time to SRE, mild for the incidence of SRE, and low for pain resolution. RESULTS: For overall survival, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid and estimated to confer a mean of 3.3 months (95% CI 0.3-6.3) of increased overall survival compared with untreated patients (P-score = 89%). For the time to SRE, denosumab was ranked first with a mean of 9.1 additional SRE-free months (95% CI 6.7-11.5) compared with untreated patients (P-score = 99%), while zoledronic acid conferred an additional 4.8 SRE-free months (95% CI 3.6-6.1). Reduction in the incidence of SREs was not different between patients treated with denosumab (relative risk 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.87) and those treated with zoledronic acid (relative risk 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.67). Patients treated with the combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy were more likely to experience successful pain resolution than untreated patients (relative risk 2.4; 95% CI 1.8-3.2). CONCLUSION: In this comprehensive synthesis of all available randomized controlled trial evidence guiding the pharmacologic treatment of bone metastases from lung cancer, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid for overall survival and time to SRE and was not different for reducing the incidence of SRE. Both were superior to no treatment for each of these outcomes. Given this, we encourage physicians to consider the use of denosumab or zoledronic acid in treating this patient population. The combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy was the most effective at reducing pain because of metastases. No cost-effectiveness analysis has yet been performed for denosumab and zoledronic acid on patients with metastatic lung cancer, and this represents an avenue for future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.