Comparing real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes (ALERTT1): a 6-month, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Lancet (British edition) 2021-06, Vol.397 (10291), p.2275-2283
Hauptverfasser: Visser, Margaretha M, Charleer, Sara, Fieuws, Steffen, De Block, Christophe, Hilbrands, Robert, Van Huffel, Liesbeth, Maes, Toon, Vanhaverbeke, Gerd, Dirinck, Eveline, Myngheer, Nele, Vercammen, Chris, Nobels, Frank, Keymeulen, Bart, Mathieu, Chantal, Gillard, Pieter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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). 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 (HbA1c), 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. Between Jan 29 and Jul 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
ISSN:0140-6736
1474-547X
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00789-3