No abstract

SummaryDespite the success of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and recent advances in pharmacotherapy, many patients with insomnia do not sufficiently respond to available treatments. This systematic review aims to present the state of science regarding the use of brain stimulation approaches in treating insomnia. To this end, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from inception to 24 March 2023. We evaluated studies that compared conditions of active stimulation with a control condition or group. Outcome measures included standardized insomnia questionnaires and/or polysomnography in adults with a clinical diagnosis of insomnia. Our search identified 17 controlled trials that met inclusion criteria, and assessed a total of 967 participants using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial electric stimulation, transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation or forehead cooling. No trials using other techniques such as deep brain stimulation, vestibular stimulation or auditory stimulation met the inclusion criteria. While several studies report improvements of subjective and objective sleep parameters for different repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial electric stimulation protocols, important methodological limitations and risk of bias limit their interpretability. A forehead cooling study found no significant group differences in the primary endpoints, but better sleep initiation in the active condition. Two transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation trials found no superiority of active stimulation for most outcome measures. Although modulating sleep through brain stimulation appears feasible, gaps in the prevailing models of sleep physiology and insomnia pathophysiology remain to be filled. Optimized stimulation protocols and proof of superiority over reliable sham conditions are indispensable before brain stimulation becomes a viable treatment option for insomnia.

IntroductionMedical devices, including high-risk medical devices, have greatly contributed to recent improvements in the management of diabetes. However, the clinical evidence that is submitted for regulatory approval is not transparent, and thus a comprehensive summary of the evidence for high-risk devices approved for managing diabetes in Europe is lacking. In the framework of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices group, we will, therefore, perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, which will evaluate the efficacy, safety and usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes.Method and analysisThis study has been reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search Embase (Elsevier), Medline All (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) to identify interventional and observational studies that evaluate the efficacy and/or safety and/or usability of high-risk medical devices for the management of diabetes. No language or publication dates’ limits will be applied. Animal studies will be excluded. In accordance with the Medical Device Regulation in European Union, high-risk medical devices are those in classes IIb and III. The following medical devices for diabetes management are considered as having a high risk: implantable continuous glucose monitoring systems, implantable pumps and automated insulin delivery devices. Selection of studies, data extraction and quality of evidence assessment will be performed independently by two researchers. Sensitivity analysis will be performed to identify and explain potential heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is needed for this systematic review, as it is based in already published data. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022366871.