Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/35804
Title: | Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial | Authors: | Visser, MM Charleer, S FIEUWS, Steffen De Block, C Hilbrands, R Van Huffel, L Maes, T Vanhaverbeke, G Dirinck, E Myngheer, N Vercammen, C Nobels, F Keymeulen, B Mathieu, C Gillard, P |
Issue Date: | 2021 | Publisher: | ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC | Source: | The Lancet, 397 (10291) , p. 2275 -2283 | Abstract: | Background People with type 1 diabetes can continuously monitor their glucose levels on demand (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring [isCGM]), or in real time (real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rtCGM]). However, it is unclear whether switching from isCGM to rtCGM with alert functionality offers additional benefits. Therefore, we did a trial comparing rtCGM and isCGM in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1).Methods We did a prospective, double-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in Belgium. Adults with type 1 diabetes who previously used isCGM were randomly assigned (1:1) to rtCGM (intervention) or isCGM (control). Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation dependent on study centre, age, gender, glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), time in range (sensor glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), insulin administration method, and hypoglycaemia awareness. Participants, investigators, and study teams were not masked to group allocation. Primary endpoint was mean between-group difference in time in range after 6 months assessed in the intention-to-treat sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03772600.Findings Between Jan 29 and July 30, 2019, 269 participants were recruited, of whom 254 were randomly assigned to rtCGM (n=127) or isCGM (n=127); 124 and 122 participants completed the study, respectively. After 6 months, time in range was higher with rtCGM than with isCGM (59.6% vs 51.9%; mean difference 6.85 percentage points [95% CI 4.36-9.34]; p<0.0001). After 6 months HbA(1c) was lower (7.1% vs 7.4%; p<0.0001), as was time <3.0 mmol/L (0.47% vs 0.84%; p=0.0070), and Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey version II worry subscale score (15.4 vs 18.0; p=0.0071). Fewer participants on rtCGM experienced severe hypoglycaemia (n=3 vs n=13; p=0.0082). Skin reaction was more frequently observed with isCGM and bleeding after sensor insertion was more frequently reported by rtCGM users.Interpretation In an unselected adult type 1 diabetes population, switching from isCGM to rtCGM significantly improved time in range after 6 months of treatment, implying that clinicians should consider rtCGM instead of isCGM to improve the health and quality of life of people with type 1 diabetes. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | Keywords: | Adult;Belgium;Blood Glucose;Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1;Female;Glycated Hemoglobin;Humans;Hypoglycemia;Hypoglycemic Agents;Insulin;Insulin Infusion Systems;Male;Prospective Studies;Quality of Life;Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring | Document URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/35804 | ISSN: | 0140-6736 | e-ISSN: | 1474-547X | DOI: | 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00789-3 | ISI #: | 000660072500030 | Rights: | 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | Category: | A1 | Type: | Journal Contribution | Validations: | ecoom 2022 |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
xx.pdf Restricted Access | Published version | 3.6 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
110
checked on Sep 28, 2024
Page view(s)
32
checked on Sep 7, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.