Elamin, Mohamed B.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized trials of adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analytic estimates of treatment effects were generated using a random-effects model. Results: Nineteen trials were eligible and provided data for meta-analysis. Overall, CGM was associated with a significant reduction in mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c; weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.27% (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.44 to −0.10)]. This was true for adults with T1DM as well as T2DM [WMD −0.50% (95% CI −0.69 to −0.30) and −0.70 (95% CI, −1.14 to −0.27), respectively]. No significant effect was noted in children and adolescents. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between studies of real-time versus non-real-time devices (WMD −0.22%, 95% CI, −0.59 to 0.15 versus −0.30%, 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.10; p for interaction 0.71). The quality of evidence was moderate due to imprecision, suggesting increased risk for bias. Data for the incidence of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia were sparse and imprecise. In studies that reported patient satisfaction, users felt confident about the device and gave positive reviews. Conclusion: Continuous glucose monitoring seems to help improve glycemic control in adults with T1DM and T2DM. The effect on hypoglycemia incidence is imprecise and unclear. Larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of CGM in reducing patient-important complications without significantly increasing the burden of care for patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE The negative results of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have challenged current guideline recommendations for using aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes. We therefore sought to determine if the effect of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality differs between patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus since their inceptions until November 2008 for RCTs of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Blinded pairs of reviewers evaluated studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian logistic regression were used to estimate the ratios of relative risks (RRs) of outcomes of interest among patients with and without diabetes. A 95% CI that crosses 1.00 indicates that the effect of aspirin does not differ between patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS Nine RCTs with moderate to high methodological quality contributed data to the analyses. The ratios of RRs comparing the benefit of aspirin among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes for mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke were 1.12 (95% CI 0.92–1.35), 1.19 (0.82–1.17), and 0.70 (0.25–1.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Whereas estimates of benefit among patients with diabetes remain imprecise, our analysis suggests that the relative benefit of aspirin is similar in patients with and without diabetes.

Abstract Context: Hypoglycemia limits the efficacy of intensive insulin therapy. The extent to which continuous insulin infusion (CSII) overcomes this limitation is unclear. Objective: The aim was to summarize evidence on the effect of CSII and multiple daily injections (MDIs) on glycemic control and hypoglycemia. Data Sources: We searched electronic databases between 2002 and March 2008. Study Selection: We selected published randomized trials of CSII vs. MDI. Data Extraction: Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics and quality and differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and hypoglycemic events. Data Synthesis: We found 15 eligible randomized trials of moderate quality, with elevated baseline and end-of-study HbA1c levels. Patients with type 1 diabetes using CSII had slightly lower HbA1c [random-effects weighted mean difference, −0.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.3, −0.1, compared with MDI], with no significant difference in severe (pooled odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23, 1.00) or nocturnal hypoglycemia (pooled odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.33, 2.03). Adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes enrolled in crossover trials had nonsignificantly fewer minor hypoglycemia episodes per patient per week (−0.08; 95% CI, −0.21, 0.06) with CSII than MDI; children enrolled in parallel trials had significantly more episodes (0.68; 95% CI, 0.16, 1.20; Pinteraction = 0.03). Outcomes were not different in patients with type 2 diabetes. Conclusions: Contemporary evidence indicates that compared to MDI, CSII slightly reduced HbA1c in adults with type 1 diabetes, with unclear impact on hypoglycemia. In type 2 diabetes, CSII and MDI had similar outcomes. The effect in patients with hypoglycemia unawareness or recurrent severe hypoglycemia remains unclear because of lack of data.

Abstract Context: The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome (CS) requires the use of tests of unregulated hypercortisolism that have unclear accuracy. Objective: Our objective was to summarize evidence on the accuracy of common tests for diagnosing CS. Data Sources: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and citation search for key articles) from 1975 through September 2007 and sought additional references from experts. Study Selection: Eligible studies reported on the accuracy of urinary free cortisol (UFC), dexamethasone suppression test (DST), and midnight cortisol assays vs. reference standard in patients suspected of CS. Data Extraction: Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics and quality and data to estimate the likelihood ratio (LR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each result. Data Synthesis: We found 27 eligible studies, with a high prevalence [794 (9.2%) of 8631 patients had CS] and severity of CS. The tests had similar accuracy: UFC (n = 14 studies; LR+ 10.6, CI 5.5–20.5; LR− 0.16, CI 0.08–0.33), salivary midnight cortisol (n = 4; LR+ 8.8, CI 3.5–21.8; LR− 0.07, CI 0–1.2), and the 1-mg overnight DST (n = 14; LR+ 16.4, CI 9.3–28.8; LR− 0.06, CI 0.03–0.14). Combined testing strategies (e.g. a positive result in both UFC and 1-mg overnight DST) had similar diagnostic accuracy (n = 3; LR+ 15.4, CI 0.7–358; LR− 0.11, CI 0.007–1.57). Conclusions: Commonly used tests to diagnose CS appear highly accurate in referral practices with samples enriched with patients with CS. Their performance in usual clinical practice remains unclear.