Anna Lilja Secher1, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard2,3, Ole L Svendsen3,4, Birthe Gade-Rasmussen5, Thomas Almdal3,6, Linda Raimond7, Dorte Vistisen7, Kirsten Nørgaard7,3. 1. Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark. anna.elisabet.lilja.secher@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Endocrinology & Nephrology, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark. 3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen N, Denmark. 4. Department of Endocrinology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark. 5. Department of Endocrinology, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark. 6. Department of Endocrinology PE, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. 7. Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the effects of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and carbohydrate counting with automated bolus calculation (ABC) with usual care. METHODS: In a randomised, controlled, open-label trial carried out at five diabetes clinics in the Capital Region of Denmark, 170 adults with type 1 diabetes for ≥1 year, multiple daily insulin injections and HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 with centrally prepared envelopes to usual care (n = 42), ABC (n = 41), isCGM (n = 48) or ABC+isCGM (n = 39). Blinded continuous glucose monitoring data, HbA1c and patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and after 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change in time in range using isCGM vs usual care. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms: mean age 47 (SD 13.7) years, median (IQR) diabetes duration 18 (10-28) years and HbA1c 65 (61-72) mmol/mol (8.1% [7.7-8.7%]). Change in time in range using isCGM was comparable to usual care (% difference of 3.9 [-12-23], p = 0.660). The same was true for the ABC and ABC+isCGM arms and for hypo- and hyperglycaemia. Also compared with usual care, using ABC+isCGM reduced HbA1c (4 [95% CI 1, 8] mmol/mol) (0.4 [0.1, 0.7] %-point) and glucose CV (11% [4%, 17%]) and improved treatment satisfaction, psychosocial self-efficacy and present life quality. Treatment satisfaction also improved by using isCGM alone vs usual care. Statistical significance was maintained after multiple testing adjustment concerning glucose CV and treatment satisfaction with ABC+isCGM, and treatment satisfaction with isCGM. Discontinuation was most common among ABC only users, and among completers the ABC was used 4 (2-5) times/day and the number of daily isCGM scans was 5 (1-7) at study end. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: isCGM alone did not improve time in range, but treatment satisfaction increased in technology-naive people with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal HbA1c. The combination of ABC+isCGM appears advantageous regarding glycaemic variables and patient-reported outcomes, but many showed resistance towards ABC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03682237. FUNDING: The study is investigator initiated and financed by the Capital Region of Denmark.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the effects of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) and carbohydrate counting with automated bolus calculation (ABC) with usual care. METHODS: In a randomised, controlled, open-label trial carried out at five diabetes clinics in the Capital Region of Denmark, 170 adults with type 1 diabetes for ≥1 year, multiple daily insulin injections and HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol (7.0%) were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 with centrally prepared envelopes to usual care (n = 42), ABC (n = 41), isCGM (n = 48) or ABC+isCGM (n = 39). Blinded continuous glucose monitoring data, HbA1c and patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and after 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change in time in range using isCGM vs usual care. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms: mean age 47 (SD 13.7) years, median (IQR) diabetes duration 18 (10-28) years and HbA1c 65 (61-72) mmol/mol (8.1% [7.7-8.7%]). Change in time in range using isCGM was comparable to usual care (% difference of 3.9 [-12-23], p = 0.660). The same was true for the ABC and ABC+isCGM arms and for hypo- and hyperglycaemia. Also compared with usual care, using ABC+isCGM reduced HbA1c (4 [95% CI 1, 8] mmol/mol) (0.4 [0.1, 0.7] %-point) and glucose CV (11% [4%, 17%]) and improved treatment satisfaction, psychosocial self-efficacy and present life quality. Treatment satisfaction also improved by using isCGM alone vs usual care. Statistical significance was maintained after multiple testing adjustment concerning glucose CV and treatment satisfaction with ABC+isCGM, and treatment satisfaction with isCGM. Discontinuation was most common among ABC only users, and among completers the ABC was used 4 (2-5) times/day and the number of daily isCGM scans was 5 (1-7) at study end. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: isCGM alone did not improve time in range, but treatment satisfaction increased in technology-naive people with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal HbA1c. The combination of ABC+isCGM appears advantageous regarding glycaemic variables and patient-reported outcomes, but many showed resistance towards ABC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03682237. FUNDING: The study is investigator initiated and financed by the Capital Region of Denmark.
Authors: Kirstine J Bell; Alan W Barclay; Peter Petocz; Stephen Colagiuri; Jennie C Brand-Miller Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Victoria Tyndall; Roland H Stimson; Nicola N Zammitt; Stuart A Ritchie; John A McKnight; Anna R Dover; Fraser W Gibb Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Morten Hasselstrøm Jensen; Simon Lebech Cichosz; Peter Gustenhoff; Amar Nikontovic; Ole Hejlesen; Peter Vestergaard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752