Contemporary clinical trials · 2024
Effect of time restricted eating versus current practice in dietetics on glycaemic control and cardio-metabolic outcomes in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes: Protocol for a multi-centre, parallel group, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.
Протокол клинического исследованияСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Charrouf Rasha, Parr Evelyn B, Hutchison Amy T, Flint Steve A, Teong Xiao Tong, Wittert Gary, Vincent Andrew D, Brennan Leah, Devlin Brooke L, Hawley John A, Heilbronn Leonie K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Time restricted eating (TRE) is a dietary strategy that may improve metabolic health. However, no studies have compared TRE with current practice (CP) in dietetics.
HYPOTHESIS: TRE will not be inferior to CP to improve glycaemic control in individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
METHODS: This parallel group, randomised, non-inferiority, controlled trial randomised 247 participants by site and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) into TRE or CP (1:1) for 12 months. Participants were aged 35-70 years, with a body mass index (BMI) >25 but <45 kg/m2, and score ≥15 on the Australian type 2 diabetes risk (AUSDRISK) assessment, without a diagnosis of T2D. Study visits were balanced between groups and all participants received five consultations at 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 months. TRE followed a self-selected 9 h eating window (≥0600 and ≤1900), whereas CP followed Australian dietary guidelines.
OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the estimate of group mean difference (TRE vs CP) of HbA1c at 4 months in a covariate linear regression adjusting for stratification factors and sex. Secondary efficacy outcomes at 4 and 12 months are changes in fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR and nocturnal glucose by continuous glucose monitor incremental area under the curve and change in HbA1c at 12 months. Other endpoints are exploratory and will not be adjusted for multiplicity.
CONCLUSIONS: We will determine whether TRE is an alternate strategy to current practice in dietetics to improve glucose control.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04762251; 21 Feb 2021.
HYPOTHESIS: TRE will not be inferior to CP to improve glycaemic control in individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
METHODS: This parallel group, randomised, non-inferiority, controlled trial randomised 247 participants by site and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) into TRE or CP (1:1) for 12 months. Participants were aged 35-70 years, with a body mass index (BMI) >25 but <45 kg/m2, and score ≥15 on the Australian type 2 diabetes risk (AUSDRISK) assessment, without a diagnosis of T2D. Study visits were balanced between groups and all participants received five consultations at 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 months. TRE followed a self-selected 9 h eating window (≥0600 and ≤1900), whereas CP followed Australian dietary guidelines.
OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the estimate of group mean difference (TRE vs CP) of HbA1c at 4 months in a covariate linear regression adjusting for stratification factors and sex. Secondary efficacy outcomes at 4 and 12 months are changes in fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR and nocturnal glucose by continuous glucose monitor incremental area under the curve and change in HbA1c at 12 months. Other endpoints are exploratory and will not be adjusted for multiplicity.
CONCLUSIONS: We will determine whether TRE is an alternate strategy to current practice in dietetics to improve glucose control.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04762251; 21 Feb 2021.