Garg S, Hirsch I B
Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80010, USA.
Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2010 Feb(166):1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02271.x.
Studies have shown that reducing A1c levels can delay and/or reduce the overall risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (1-5). Implementation of intensive diabetes management [using insulin pumps or multiple daily injections along with increased frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)] is expensive although there is a significant reduction in risk of long-term complications and cost (6,7). Although the benefits of optimal glucose control seem clear, the risk of severe hypoglycaemia can be a barrier to achieving this goal (1,4,5). In fact, there is nearly a threefold increase in hypoglycaemia with intensification of treatment in type 1 diabetes (1). This is further complicated by the results of recent clinical trials in type 2 diabetes [ACCORD (8), ADVANCE (9) and VADT (10)]. The results of these trials have shown conflicting outcomes in the intensively treated arm. This paradox has created a need for new technology that will facilitate optimal glucose control by recommending appropriate insulin doses while decreasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. There is no doubt of the role of SMBG in insulin-requiring patients with diabetes as it helps guide patients and the providers to adjust their insulin dose on a daily basis. There is enough data documenting the beneficial effects of increased SMBG in such individuals. However, the story for patients with type 2 diabetes not on insulin therapy is different. There is no consensus on frequency and timing of SMBG and its exact impact on glucose control in non-insulin-requiring individuals with type 2 diabetes is debatable. Part of the reason for this controversy may be related to increasing healthcare cost and thus payers finding ways not to reimburse SMBG, since there is conflicting data and the evidence of SMBG improving long-term outcomes in such individuals is not fully evaluated. The prevalence of diabetes is rising worldwide and there are more than 24 million people, with both type 1 and 2 diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed), in the USA (11-15). With a limited number of endocrinologists or diabetes specialists available in the USA, most clinical diabetes care is provided by primary care physicians (16). Tools to help patients adjust their insulin dose at home should help in improving their glucose control. Several technologies such as continuous glucose monitors (sensors) and glucometers (SMBG) are on the market and have been shown to help patients improve glucose excursions, reduce glucose variability, decrease time spent in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improve A1c levels (17-19). Other software available on insulin pumps can also guide patients with adjustment of insulin dose, especially meal-time boluses (20). We hope that the future might see many such technologies being used on a regular basis to guide providers and patients for better long-term outcomes.
研究表明,降低糖化血红蛋白(A1c)水平可延缓和/或降低1型和2型糖尿病相关的微血管和大血管并发症的总体风险(1 - 5)。实施强化糖尿病管理[使用胰岛素泵或每日多次注射以及增加自我血糖监测(SMBG)频率]成本高昂,尽管长期并发症风险和成本显著降低(6,7)。尽管最佳血糖控制的益处似乎很明显,但严重低血糖风险可能成为实现这一目标的障碍(1,4,5)。事实上,1型糖尿病强化治疗时低血糖发生率几乎增加了两倍(1)。2型糖尿病近期临床试验[控制糖尿病心血管风险行动(ACCORD)(8)、糖尿病和血管疾病行动(ADVANCE)(9)以及退伍军人糖尿病试验(VADT)(10)]的结果使情况更加复杂。这些试验结果显示强化治疗组的结果相互矛盾。这种矛盾促使人们需要新技术,通过推荐合适的胰岛素剂量来促进最佳血糖控制,同时降低低血糖风险。毫无疑问,自我血糖监测在需要胰岛素治疗的糖尿病患者中发挥着作用,因为它有助于指导患者和医护人员每天调整胰岛素剂量。有足够的数据证明增加自我血糖监测对这类患者有益。然而,2型糖尿病非胰岛素治疗患者的情况有所不同。对于自我血糖监测的频率和时间以及其对非胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病患者血糖控制的确切影响尚无共识。争议的部分原因可能与医疗成本增加有关,因此支付方想方设法不报销自我血糖监测费用,因为数据相互矛盾,且自我血糖监测改善这类患者长期预后的证据尚未得到充分评估。全球糖尿病患病率正在上升,在美国有超过2400万人患有1型和2型糖尿病(已确诊和未确诊)(11 - 15)。由于美国内分泌科医生或糖尿病专科医生数量有限,大多数临床糖尿病护理由初级保健医生提供(16)。帮助患者在家中调整胰岛素剂量的工具应有助于改善他们的血糖控制。市场上有几种技术,如连续血糖监测仪(传感器)和血糖仪(自我血糖监测),已被证明有助于患者改善血糖波动、降低血糖变异性、减少低血糖和高血糖时间并改善糖化血红蛋白水平(17 - 19)。胰岛素泵上的其他软件也可以指导患者调整胰岛素剂量,尤其是餐时大剂量注射(20)。我们希望未来能经常看到许多此类技术被用于指导医护人员和患者,以实现更好的长期预后。