Dataset Information

Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could be a valuable instrument for measurement of glucose concentration in preterm neonate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CGM devices to intermittent blood glucose evaluation methods for the detection of hypoglycaemic or hypoglycaemic events in preterm infants.

Data sources

A structured electronic database search was performed for studies that assessed the accuracy of CGM against any intermittent blood glucose testing methods in detecting episodes of altered glycaemia in preterm infants. No restrictions were used. Three review authors screened records and included studies.

Data extraction

Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. From individual patient data (IPD), sensitivity and specificity were determined using predefined thresholds. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of the studied CGM devices was assessed and if those satisfied the accuracy requirements (EN ISO 15197). IPD datasets were meta-analysed using a logistic mixed-effects model. A bivariate model was used to estimate the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curve and extract the area under the curve (AUC). The overall level of certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results

Among 4481 records, 11 were included. IPD datasets were obtained for five studies. Only two of the studies showed an MARD lower than 10%, with none of the five CGM devices studied satisfying the European Union (EU) ISO 15197 requirements. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CGM devices for hypoglycaemia were 0.39 and 0.99, whereas for hyperglycaemia were 0.87 and 0.99, respectively. The AUC was 0.70 and 0.86, respectively. The certainty of the evidence was considered as low to moderate. Limitations primarily related to the lack of representative population, reference standard and CGM device.

Conclusions

CGM devices demonstrated low sensitivity for detecting hypoglycaemia in preterm infants, however, provided high accuracy for detection of hyperglycaemia.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020152248.

SUBMITTER: Nava C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7768969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreterm infants are susceptible to hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, which may lead to adverse neurodevelopment. The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices might help in keeping glucose levels in the normal range, and reduce the need for blood sampling. However, the use of CGM might be associated with harms in the preterm infant.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycaemia in preterm infants 1. at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; 2. with proven hypoglycaemia; or 3. with proven hyperglycaemia.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 4); PubMed; Embase; and CINAHL in April 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.Selection criteriaWe included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing the use of CGM versus intermittent modalities to measure glycaemia in preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; with proven hypoglycaemia; or with proven hyperglycaemia.Data collection and analysisWe assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomization, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical data and mean, standard deviation (SD), and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Main resultsWe included four trials enrolling 300 infants in our updated review. We included one new study and excluded another previously included study (because the inclusion criteria of the review have been narrowed). We compared the use of CGM to intermittent modalities in preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia; however, one of these trials was analyzed separately because CGM was used as a standalone device, without being coupled to a control algorithm as in the other trials. We identified no studies in preterm infants with proven hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. None of the four included trials reported the neurodevelopmental outcome (i.e. the primary outcome of this review), or seizures. The effect of the use of CGM on mortality during hospitalization is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.13; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.03; 230 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes because of limitations in study design, and imprecision of estimates. One study is ongoing (estimated sample size 60 infants) and planned to be completed in 2022.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine if CGM affects preterm infant mortality or morbidities. We are very uncertain of the safety of CGM and the available management algorithms, and many morbidities remain unreported. Preterm infants at risk of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia were enrolled in all four included studies. No studies have been conducted in preterm infants with proven hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. Long-term outcomes were not reported. Events of necrotizing enterocolitis, reported in the study published in 2021, were lower in the CGM group. However, the effect of CGM on this outcome remains very uncertain. Clinical trials are required to determine the most effective CGM and glycaemic management regimens in preterm infants before larger studies can be performed to assess the efficacy of CGM for reducing mortality, morbidity, and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Preterm infants requiring assisted ventilation are at significant risk of both pulmonary and cerebral injury. Inhaled Nitric Oxide, an effective therapy for pulmonary hypertension and hypoxic respiratory failure in the full term infant, has also been studied in preterm infants. The most recent Cochrane review of preterm infants includes 11 studies and 3,370 participants. The results show a statistically significant reduction in the combined outcome of death or chronic lung disease (CLD) in two studies with routine use of iNO in intubated preterm infants. However, uncertainty remains as a larger study (Kinsella 2006) showed no significant benefit for iNO for this combined outcome. Also, trials that included very ill infants do not demonstrate significant benefit. One trial of iNO treatment at a later postnatal age reported a decrease in the incidence of CLD. The aim of this individual patient meta-analysis is to confirm or refute these potentially conflicting results and to determine the extent to which patient or treatment characteristics may explain the results and/or may predict benefit from inhaled Nitric Oxide in preterm infants. METHODS/DESIGN: The Meta-Analysis of Preterm Patients on inhaled Nitric Oxide (MAPPiNO) Collaboration will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis to answer these important clinical questions. Studies will be included if preterm infants receiving assisted ventilation are randomized to receive inhaled Nitric Oxide or to a control group. The individual patient data provided by the Collaborators will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis where possible. Binary outcomes will be analyzed using log-binomial regression models and continuous outcomes will be analyzed using linear fixed effects models. Adjustments for trial differences will be made by including the trial variable in the model specification. DISCUSSION: Thirteen (13) trials, with a total of 3567 infants are eligible for inclusion in the MAPPiNO systematic review. To date 11 trials (n = 3298, 92% of available patients) have agreed to participate. Funding was successfully granted from Ikaria Inc as an unrestricted grant. A collaborative group was formed in 2006 with data collection commencing in 2007. It is anticipated that data analysis will commence in late 2009 with results being publicly available in 2010.

Project description:BackgroundHyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia are common in preterm infants and have been associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Interventions to reduce risk associated with these exposures are particularly challenging due to the infrequent measurement of blood glucose concentrations, with the potential of causing more harm instead of improving outcomes for these infants. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used in adults and children with diabetes to improve glucose control, but has not been approved for use in neonates. The REACT trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CGM in preterm infants requiring intensive care.MethodsThis international, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done in 13 neonatal intensive care units in the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands. Infants were included if they were within 24 h of birth, had a birthweight of 1200 g or less, had a gestational age up to 33 weeks plus 6 days, and had parental written informed consent. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to real-time CGM or standard care (with masked CGM for comparison) using a central web randomisation system, stratified by recruiting centre and gestational age (<26 or ≥26 weeks). The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of time sensor glucose concentration was 2·6-10 mmol/L for the first week of life. Safety outcomes related to hypoglycaemia (glucose concentrations <2·6 mmol/L) in the first 7 days of life. All outcomes were assessed on the basis of intention to treat in the full analysis set with available data. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Control Trials Registry, ISRCTN12793535.FindingsBetween July 4, 2016, and Jan 27, 2019, 182 infants were enrolled, 180 of whom were randomly assigned (85 to real-time CGM, 95 to standard care). 70 infants in the real-time CGM intervention group and 85 in the standard care group had CGM data and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with infants in the standard care group, infants managed using CGM had more time in the 2·6-10 mmol/L glucose concentration target range (mean proportion of time 84% [SD 22] vs 94% [11]; adjusted mean difference 8·9% [95% CI 3·4-14·4]), equivalent to 13 h (95% CI 5-21). More infants in the standard care group were exposed to at least one episode of sensor glucose concentration of less than 2·6 mmol/L for more than 1 h than those in the intervention group (13 [15%] of 85 vs four [6%] of 70). There were no serious adverse events related to the use of the device or episodes of infection.InterpretationReal-time CGM can reduce exposure to prolonged or severe hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. Further studies using CGM are required to determine optimal glucose targets, strategies to obtain them, and the potential effect on long-term health outcomes.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanisms Evaluation Programme.

Project description:Background and Objective: Due to its numerous health benefits, breast milk (BM) is recommended for preterm infants. Despite such recommendations, the rates of breastfeeding in preterm infants are lower than that in term infants. Quality improvement (QI) bundles increase breastfeeding in preterm infants, but their replication in neonatal intensive care units has had inconsistent outcomes. Methods: We used the Population or Problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework to develop our search strategy, and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 15, 2021. Studies describing any active QI intervention to increase BM use in preterm infants were included. The primary outcome measure was the rate of any breastfeeding or exclusive mother's own milk (MOM) at discharge or during hospitalization. Results: Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion and showed an acceptable risk of bias, and included 1 interrupted time series, study 3 controlled before-and-after studies, and 12 uncontrolled before-and-after studies; of these, 3 studies were excluded due to insufficient dichotomous data, 13 were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, the rate of any breastfeeding was significantly improved at discharge and during hospitalization after QI [risk ratio (RR) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-1.32, P < 0.00001 and RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.09-3.29, P = 0.02, respectively]. The rate of exclusive MOM after QI was also significantly increased at discharge (RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.04-2.18, P = 0.03), but not during hospitalization (RR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.78-2.98, P = 0.22). However, after sensitivity analysis, the comprehensive results still suggested that QI could significantly improve the rate of exclusive MOM during hospitalization (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.35, P = 0.001). Funnel plots and Egger's test indicated publication bias in the rate of any BF at discharge. We corrected publication bias by trim and fill analysis, and corrected RR to 1.272, 95% CI: (1.175, 1.369), which was consistent with the results of the initial model. Conclusions: A QI bundle appears to be effective for promoting BM use in preterm infants at discharge or during hospitalization.

Project description:Respiratory support is crucial for the survival of preterm infants, and High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (HFNC) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) are commonly used for neonatal respiratory support. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of HFNC and CPAP in primary respiratory support for preterm infants, to provide evidence-based support for clinical practice. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG and SinoMed were searched for eligible studies. The primary outcomes included the incidence of treatment failure and the application of mechanical ventilation. A total of 27 eligible studies with 3,351 participants were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of respiratory support failure [RR = 1.17, 95%CI (0.88-1.56)] and the application of mechanical ventilation [RR = 1.00, 95%CI (0.84-1.19)] between HFNC group and CPAP group. HFNC resulted in lower rate of air leaks [RR = 0.65, 95%CI (0.46-0.92)], nasal trauma [RR = 0.36, 95%CI (0.29-0.45)] and abdominal distension [RR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.27-0.58)], and later time of mechanical ventilation initiating [SMD = 0.60, 95%CI (0.21-0.99)], less duration of oxygen therapy [SMD = -0.35, 95%CI (-0.68 to -0.02)] and earlier enteral feeding [SMD = -0.54, 95%CI (-0.95 to -0.13)]. Alternative non-invasive respiratory support after initial treatment failure resulted in no difference in the application of mechanical ventilation between the two groups [RR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.52-1.88)]. HFNC might be more effective and safer in primary respiratory support for preterm infants. Using CPAP as a remedy for the treatment failure of HFNC could not avoid intubation. For premature infants with the gestational age <28 weeks, HFNC as primary respiratory support still needs to be further elucidated. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022313479, identifier: CRD42022313479.