New J P, Ajjan R, Pfeiffer A F H, Freckmann G
Department of Diabetes, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Diabet Med. 2015 May;32(5):609-17. doi: 10.1111/dme.12713. Epub 2015 Feb 20.
To investigate the best glucose monitoring strategy for maintaining euglycaemia by comparing self-monitoring of blood glucose with continuous glucose monitoring, with or without an alarm function.
A 100-day, randomized controlled study was conducted at four European centres, enrolling 160 patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Participants were randomized to continuous glucose monitoring without alarms (n = 48), continuous glucose monitoring with alarms (n = 49) or self-monitoring of blood glucose (n = 48).
Time spent outside the glucose target during days 80-100 was 9.9 h/day for the continuous glucose monitoring without alarms group, 9.7 h/day for the continuous glucose monitoring with alarms group and 10.6 h/day for the self-monitoring of blood glucose group (P = 0.18 and 0.08 compared with continuous glucose monitoring without and with alarms, respectively).The continuous glucose monitoring with alarms group spent less time in hypoglycaemia compared with the self-monitoring of blood glucose group (1.0 h/day and 1.6 h/day, respectively; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1; P = 0.030). Among those treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, time spent outside the glucose target was significantly different when comparing continuous glucose monitoring without alarms and self-monitoring of blood glucose (-1.9 h/day; 95% CI -3.8 to 0.0; P = 0.0461) and when comparing continuous glucose monitoring with alarms and self-monitoring of blood glucose (-2.4 h/day; 95% CI -4.1 to -0.5; P = 0.0134). There was no difference in HbA1c reduction from baseline in the three groups; however, the proportion of participants with a reduction of ≥ 6 mmol/mol (≥ 0.5%) was higher in the continuous glucose monitoring without alarms (27%) and continuous glucose monitoring with alarms groups (25%) than in the self-monitoring of blood glucose group (10.6%).
This study shows that the use of continuous glucose monitoring reduces time spent outside glucose targets compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, especially among users of insulin pumps.
通过比较血糖自我监测与动态血糖监测(有无警报功能),探究维持血糖正常的最佳血糖监测策略。
在欧洲四个中心进行了一项为期100天的随机对照研究,纳入160例1型或2型糖尿病患者,这些患者每日多次注射胰岛素或持续皮下胰岛素输注。参与者被随机分为无警报动态血糖监测组(n = 48)、有警报动态血糖监测组(n = 49)或血糖自我监测组(n = 48)。
在第80 - 100天期间,无警报动态血糖监测组血糖超出目标范围的时间为9.9小时/天,有警报动态血糖监测组为9.7小时/天,血糖自我监测组为10.6小时/天(与无警报和有警报动态血糖监测组相比,P分别为0.18和0.08)。有警报动态血糖监测组与血糖自我监测组相比,低血糖持续时间更短(分别为1.0小时/天和1.6小时/天;95%CI -1.2至-0.1;P = 0.030)。在接受持续皮下胰岛素输注治疗的患者中,比较无警报动态血糖监测与血糖自我监测时,血糖超出目标范围的时间有显著差异(-1.9小时/天;95%CI -3.8至0.0;P = 0.0461),比较有警报动态血糖监测与血糖自我监测时也有显著差异(-2.4小时/天;95%CI -4.1至-0.5;P = 0.0134)。三组的糖化血红蛋白从基线水平的降低幅度无差异;然而,无警报动态血糖监测组(27%)和有警报动态血糖监测组(25%)中糖化血红蛋白降低≥6 mmol/mol(≥0.5%)的参与者比例高于血糖自我监测组(10.6%)。
本研究表明,与血糖自我监测相比,使用动态血糖监测可减少血糖超出目标范围的时间,尤其是在胰岛素泵使用者中。