Lower Glycated Hemoglobin with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than with Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring After 1 Year: The CORRIDA LIFE Study
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu klinické zkoušky, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
36037056
DOI
10.1089/dia.2022.0152
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Continuous glucose monitoring, Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, Flash glucose monitoring, Glycated hemoglobin, Hypoglycemia, Multiple daily insulin injections, Time in range, Type 1 diabetes,
- MeSH
- diabetes mellitus 1. typu * farmakoterapie MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- glykovaný hemoglobin analýza MeSH
- hypoglykemie * prevence a kontrola farmakoterapie MeSH
- hypoglykemika terapeutické užití MeSH
- inzulin terapeutické užití MeSH
- krevní glukóza MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- selfmonitoring glykemie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- klinické zkoušky MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Názvy látek
- glykovaný hemoglobin MeSH
- hypoglykemika MeSH
- inzulin MeSH
- krevní glukóza MeSH
Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).
1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
3rd Department of Internal Medicine 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
CGParkin Communications Inc Henderson Nevada USA
Department of Internal Medicine Masaryk Hospital Ústí nad Labem Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT04759495
