Clinical evidence for high‐risk CE‐marked medical devices for glucose management: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis, within the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE‐MD) project, evaluating CE‐marked high‐risk devices for glucose management.Materials and MethodsWe identified interventional and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of eight automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, two implantable insulin pumps, and three implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. We meta‐analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AID systems with other treatments.ResultsA total of 182 studies published between 2009 and 2024 were included, comprising 166 studies on AID systems, six on insulin pumps, and 10 on CGM devices; 26% reported industry funding; 18% were pre‐market; 37% had a comparator group. Of the studies identified, 29% were RCTs, 24% were non‐randomized trials, and 47% were observational studies. The median (interquartile range) sample size was 48 (28–102), age 34.8 (14–44.2) years, and study duration 17.5 (12–26) weeks. AID systems lowered glycated haemoglobin by 0.5 percentage points (absolute mean difference [MD] = −0.5; 21 RCTs; I2 = 86%) and increased time in target range for sensor glucose level by 13.4 percentage points (MD = 13.4; 14 RCTs; I2 = 90%). At least one safety outcome was assessed in 71% of studies.ConclusionsHigh‐risk devices for glucose monitoring or insulin dosing, in particular AID systems, improve glucose control safely, but evidence on diabetes‐related end‐organ damage is lacking due to short study durations. Methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for developing standards for future pre‐ and post‐market investigations of diabetes‐specific high‐risk medical devices.