← Tutti gli studi
Tipo 1 nei bambini
Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Laffel LM, et al. · 2020
🌱 La lettura di LEO
📉 Lavora su: Stabilità nel tempo · lente Traiettoria · il corpo nel tempo
tocca anche 💊 Terapia
RCT multicentrico (prova forte) — 153 partecipanti di 14-24 anni, 26 settimane
La domandaIl monitoraggio continuo aiuta anche gli adolescenti, o solo gli adulti?
Cosa hanno trovatoRCT in 14 centri USA (gennaio 2018 - maggio 2019) su 153 persone di 14-24 anni con tipo 1 e HbA1c fra 7,5% e 10,9%, randomizzate a monitoraggio continuo (74) o glicemia capillare (79). Eta' media 17 anni, durata media del diabete 9 anni. Nel gruppo sensore il 68% lo ha usato almeno 5 giorni su 7 al sesto mese. HbA1c: 8,9% al basale e 8,5% a 26 settimane col sensore, contro 8,9% e 8,9% col controllo — differenza aggiustata fra gruppi −0,37% (IC 95% da −0,66 a −0,08; P = 0,01). Dei 20 esiti secondari prespecificati, differenze significative in 3 dei 7 esiti binari di HbA1c, in 8 delle 9 metriche del sensore e in 1 dei 4 esiti riferiti dal paziente.
Cosa significa per teIl beneficio c'e' ma e' modesto: −0,37% di HbA1c, molto meno di quanto lo stesso strumento fa negli adulti. Il motivo sta nel dato piu' istruttivo: solo due terzi lo portavano davvero. In adolescenza il problema non e' la tecnologia, e' la vita — e un consiglio che ignora questo non serve a niente.
Abstract (in lingua originale)
IMPORTANCE: Adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes exhibit the worst glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan. Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in adults, its benefit in adolescents and young adults has not been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of CGM on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial conducted between January 2018 and May 2019 at 14 endocrinology practices in the US including 153 individuals aged 14 to 24 years with type 1 diabetes and screening hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.9%. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo CGM (CGM group; n = 74) or usual care using a blood glucose meter for glucose monitoring (blood glucose monitoring [BGM] group; n = 79). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 26 weeks. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including additional HbA1c outcomes, CGM glucose metrics, and patient-reported outcomes with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for the false discovery rate. RESULTS: Among the 153 participants (mean [SD] age, 17 [3] years; 76 [50%] were female; mean [SD] diabetes duration, 9 [5] years), 142 (93%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 68% of participants used CGM at least 5 days per week in month 6. Mean HbA1c was 8.9% at baseline and 8.5% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and 8.9% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the BGM group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.37% [95% CI, -0.66% to -0.08%]; P = .01). Of 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes, 8 of 9 CGM metrics, and 1 of 4 patient-reported outcomes. The most commonly reported adverse events in the CGM and BGM groups were severe hypoglycemia (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 2 in the BGM group), hyperglycemia/ketosis (1 participant with an event in CGM group and 4 in the BGM group), and diabetic ketoacidosis (3 participants with an event in the CGM group and 1 in the BGM group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in glycemic control over 26 weeks. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03263494.
💬 Chiedi a LEO di spiegartelo
Come leggerlo: è uno studio scientifico peer-reviewed. Le evidenze aiutano a capire i trend, ma un singolo studio non è una prescrizione: parlane col tuo diabetologo prima di cambiare dieta o terapia.