Systematic review: continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion with implantable insulin pumps for diabetes mellitus

Continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) with implantable insulin pumps (IIPs) is a treatment option for diabetes, which is not widely utilized nor freely accessible in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to summarize available evidence on use of IIPs for CIPII for diabetes treatment, since its introduction to clinical use on the following outcomes: HbA1c, hypoglycaemic events, and complications of treatment. Secondary outcomes: complications of diabetes and treatment satisfaction. Following the procedure for a systematic review this paper may contribute to a balanced evaluation of the need and effectiveness of IIPs. A pre-specified, registered protocol (CRD42012002150) was followed. Studies investigating all diabetes populations and types of IIPs were considered eligible. The sensitive search strategy was developed in collaboration with a clinical librarian and contents experts. PUBMED, MEDLINE, CENTRAL EMBASE, trial registries, and other databases were searched. References were screened independently by two authors, and decisions on study selection were recorded. Of the 1,703 references screened, 362 were assessed as potentially eligible. Ninety-four were identified as studies using IIPs. Fifteen papers, together reporting on four-randomized trials, and eight cohorts were included. Narrative analysis is provided, and data tables are available. CIPII by way of IIPs is effective in lowering HbA1c levels and reducing hypoglycaemic events. Superiority of IIP treatment is likely related to patient characteristics, one subgroup being patients unable to acquire satisfactory glycaemic control with subcutaneous insulin treatment. Higher treatment satisfaction was also reported for this subgroup. For these patients, risk of morbidity may be considered acceptable. Patients' perspectives, influence on quality of life, and possible other outcomes should also be considered important factors in weighing individual benefits and risks. A more uniform method of reporting would help strengthen the evidence base