Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
e-Letters: Observations

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Can We Do Better With Artificial Pancreas Devices?

  1. Katharine D. Barnard1⇑,
  2. Thomas Kubiak2,
  3. Norbert Hermanns3 and
  4. Lutz Heinemann4
  1. 1Human Development and Health Academic Unit and Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, U.K.
  2. 2Health Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
  3. 3Diabetes Center Mergentheim, Research Institute Diabetes (FIDAM), Bad Mergentheim, Germany
  4. 4Science & Co., Düsseldorf, Germany
  1. Corresponding author: Katharine D. Barnard, k.barnard{at}soton.ac.uk.
Diabetes Care 2015 May; 38(5): e70-e70. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-3044
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assess a person’s experience, feelings, and thoughts about both their condition and its treatment. PROs are able to contribute to a benefit assessment of new medical products by introducing the patients’ subjective evaluation of medical products into the evaluation process. Thus, PROs are also the cornerstone of medical product development for understanding patients’ perceptions on medical products and/or its benefit assessment.

In the past 15 years, PROs were also evaluated in most clinical trials performed with continuous glucose monitoring systems. However, in its recent evaluation of such trials, the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG)—which has to provide an evidence-based review of the benefits and risks that is key for reimbursement—regarded the quality of PROs in the publications evaluated as quite low. Major criticisms were the huge heterogeneity of PROs used, making comparisons across clinical trials almost impossible. Generic health-related quality-of-life instruments were used with diabetes-specific and device-specific questionnaires. Instruments assessing PROs on these different levels have different sensitivities for assessing the benefits or adverse effects of medical products, which translates into a different statistical power to measure the impact on the subjective evaluation of medical products (1). As clinical trials are usually powered to reach a certain medical outcome (e.g., glycemic control as primary end point), which usually has greater effect sizes than the impact of medical products on PROs, the results on PROs were mostly statistically insignificant. Although acknowledging these issues regarding PROs, the IQWiG disregarded the information based on PROs for their benefit assessment. Thus, all the efforts to evaluate PROs in such trials were more or less useless when it came to such an important aspect such as a reimbursement decision.

As we cannot change the past, we would like to draw attention to the fact that we should not repeat this mistake in another area of research: the development of artificial pancreas (AP) systems. This has made tremendous progress in the past years. A number of scientists and companies are performing clinical trials—also under at-home conditions for longer periods of time—with different AP systems to assess treatment benefits and risks of their usage. Evaluation of PROs is critical to develop AP systems that are used in the real world by the patients. Therefore, we believe that clarity and a certain amount of harmonization are required about which PROs are used in AP trials, by considering the above-mentioned problems.

We suggest establishing a working group in which members of the respective research teams work collaboratively to achieve consensus about suitable PRO measures. These have to be adjusted to the relevant domains associated with AP use. This will hopefully assist regulatory authorities in their decision making about market approval and reimbursement. The data provided by PROs will also help clinicians to address barriers of AP uptake and to support continued use of such devices.

Article Information

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. K.D.B. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. K.D.B., T.K., N.H., and L.H. revised and wrote subsequent drafts and the final version of the manuscript. K.D.B. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

  • © 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Julious SA,
    2. Walters SJ
    . Estimating effect sizes for health-related quality of life outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2014;23:430–439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 38 (5)

In this Issue

May 2015, 38(5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patient-Reported Outcomes and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Can We Do Better With Artificial Pancreas Devices?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Patient-Reported Outcomes and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Can We Do Better With Artificial Pancreas Devices?
Katharine D. Barnard, Thomas Kubiak, Norbert Hermanns, Lutz Heinemann
Diabetes Care May 2015, 38 (5) e70; DOI: 10.2337/dc14-3044

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Can We Do Better With Artificial Pancreas Devices?
Katharine D. Barnard, Thomas Kubiak, Norbert Hermanns, Lutz Heinemann
Diabetes Care May 2015, 38 (5) e70; DOI: 10.2337/dc14-3044
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Article Information
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Early Worsening of Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 2 Diabetes After Rapid Improvement in Chronic Severe Hyperglycemia
  • Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Operating Room and Cardiac Intensive Care Unit
  • Vertebral Ischemic Necrosis in Diabetic Lumbosacral Radiculoplexus Neuropathy
Show more e-Letters: Observations

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.