The effect of bolus advisors on glycaemic parameters in adults with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy:A systematic review with meta-analysis

Aim To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies investigating the effects of currently available bolus advisors on glycaemic parameters in adults with diabetes. Materials and Methods An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted in December 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. (Standardized) mean difference (MD) was selected to determine the difference in continuous outcomes between the groups. A random-effects model meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374588). Results A total of 18 RCTs involving 1645 adults (50% females) with a median glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 8.45% (7.95%–9.30%) were included. The majority of participants had type 1 diabetes (N = 1510, 92%) and were on multiple daily injections (N = 1173, 71%). Twelve of the 18 trials had low risk of bias. The meta-analysis of 10 studies with available data on HbA1c showed that the use of a bolus advisor modestly reduced HbA1c compared to standard treatment (MD −011%, 95% confidence interval −0.22 to −0.01; I2 = 0%). This effect was accompanied by small improvements in low blood glucose index and treatment satisfaction, but not with reductions in hypoglycaemic events or changes in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion Use of a bolus advisor is associated with slightly better glucose control and treatment satisfaction in people with diabetes on intensive insulin treatment. Future studies should investigate whether personalizing bolus advisors using artificial intelligence technology can enhance these effects.
Aim: To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies investigating the effects of currently available bolus advisors on glycaemic parameters in adults with diabetes. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted in December 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. (Standardized) mean difference (MD) was selected to determine the difference in continuous outcomes between the groups. A random-effects model meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374588). Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1645 adults (50% females) with a median glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 8.45% (7.95%–9.30%) were included. The majority of participants had type 1 diabetes (N = 1510, 92%) and were on multiple daily injections (N = 1173, 71%). Twelve of the 18 trials had low risk of bias. The meta-analysis of 10 studies with available data on HbA1c showed that the use of a bolus advisor modestly reduced HbA1c compared to standard treatment (MD −011%, 95% confidence interval −0.22 to −0.01; I2 = 0%). This effect was accompanied by small improvements in low blood glucose index and treatment satisfaction, but not with reductions in hypoglycaemic events or changes in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Use of a bolus advisor is associated with slightly better glucose control and treatment satisfaction in people with diabetes on intensive insulin treatment. Future studies should investigate whether personalizing bolus advisors using artificial intelligence technology can enhance these effects.