Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial

A. Hásková, L. Radovnická, L. Petruželková, CG. Parkin, G. Grunberger, E. Horová, V. Navrátilová, O. Kádě, M. Matoulek, M. Prázný, J. Šoupal

. 2020 ; 43 (11) : 2744-2750. [pub] 20200828

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21019874

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems. RESULTS: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21019874
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830101455.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.2337/dc20-0112 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32859607
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Hásková, Aneta $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial / $c A. Hásková, L. Radovnická, L. Petruželková, CG. Parkin, G. Grunberger, E. Horová, V. Navrátilová, O. Kádě, M. Matoulek, M. Prázný, J. Šoupal
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems. RESULTS: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a krevní glukóza $x analýza $x účinky léků $x metabolismus $7 D001786
650    _2
$a selfmonitoring glykemie $x metody $7 D015190
650    _2
$a počítačové systémy $7 D003199
650    _2
$a počítače do ruky $7 D034201
650    _2
$a diabetes mellitus 1. typu $x krev $x farmakoterapie $7 D003922
650    _2
$a cvičení $x fyziologie $7 D015444
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a glykovaný hemoglobin $x analýza $x účinky léků $x metabolismus $7 D006442
650    _2
$a regulace glykemie $x přístrojové vybavení $x metody $7 D000085002
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a hypoglykemie $x krev $x chemicky indukované $7 D007003
650    _2
$a hypoglykemika $x terapeutické užití $7 D007004
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Radovnická, Lucie $u Masaryk Hospital, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Petruželková, Lenka $u Department of Paediatrics, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Parkin, Christopher G $u CGParkin Communications, Inc., Henderson, NV
700    1_
$a Grunberger, George $u Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, MI
700    1_
$a Horová, Eva $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Navrátilová, Vendula $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kádě, Ondřej $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Matoulek, Martin $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Prázný, Martin $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Šoupal, Jan $u 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic jan.soupal@seznam.cz
773    0_
$w MED00001380 $t Diabetes care $x 1935-5548 $g Roč. 43, č. 11 (2020), s. 2744-2750
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32859607 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830101455 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1690639 $s 1140320
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 43 $c 11 $d 2744-2750 $e 20200828 $i 1935-5548 $m Diabetes care $n Diabetes Care $x MED00001380
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options