Department of Clinical and Translational Research, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
Nutr Diabetes. 2024 Jun 27;14(1):47. doi: 10.1038/s41387-024-00307-0.
Clinical guidelines recommend basic carbohydrate counting (BCC), or similar methods to improve carbohydrate estimation skills and to strive for higher consistency in carbohydrate intake potentially improving glycaemic control. However, evidence for this approach in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited.
To examine the efficacy of a structured education program in BCC as add-on to standard dietary care on glycaemic control in individuals with T2D.
The BCC Study was a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial. Individuals with T2D aged 18-75 years with glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 53-97 mmol/mol (7.0-11.0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to BCC or standard dietary care. The primary outcomes were differences in changes in HbA1c or glycaemic variability (calculated as mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions [MAGE]) between groups after six months of intervention.
Between September 2018 and July 2021, 48 participants were randomly assigned, 23 to BCC and 25 to standard dietary care. Seven participants did not receive the allocated intervention. From a baseline-adjusted mean of 65 mmol/mol (95% CI 62-68 [8.1%, 7.8-8.4]), HbA1c changed by -5 mmol/mol (-8 to -1 [-0.5%, -0.7 to -0.1]) in BCC and -3 mmol/mol (-7 to 1 [-0.3%, -0.6 to 0.1]) in standard care with an estimated treatment effect of -2 mmol/mol (-7 to 4 [-0.2%, -0.6 to 0.4]); p = 0.554. From a baseline-adjusted mean of 4.2 mmol/l (3.7 to 4.8), MAGE changed by -16% (-33 to 5) in BCC and by -3% (-21 to 20) in standard care with an estimated treatment effect of -14% (-36 to 16); p = 0.319. Only median carbohydrate estimation error in favour of BCC (estimated treatment difference -55% (-70 to -32); p < 0.001) remained significant after multiple testing adjustment.
No glycaemic effects were found but incorporating BCC as a supplementary component to standard dietary care led to improved skills in estimating carbohydrate intake among individuals with T2D.
临床指南推荐基本碳水化合物计数(BCC)或类似方法来提高碳水化合物估计技能,并努力提高碳水化合物摄入量的一致性,从而潜在改善血糖控制。然而,在 2 型糖尿病(T2D)中,这种方法的证据有限。
在 T2D 患者中,研究 BCC 结构化教育方案作为标准饮食护理的附加治疗对血糖控制的疗效。
BCC 研究是一项随机、对照、开放标签、平行组试验。年龄在 18-75 岁之间、糖化血红蛋白 A1c(HbA1c)为 53-97mmol/mol(7.0-11.0%)的 T2D 患者被随机分配(1:1)接受 BCC 或标准饮食护理。主要结局是干预 6 个月后两组之间 HbA1c 或血糖变异性(计算为血糖波动幅度 [MAGE])的变化差异。
2018 年 9 月至 2021 年 7 月,共有 48 名患者被随机分配,23 名接受 BCC,25 名接受标准饮食护理。7 名患者未接受分配的干预措施。从基线调整后的平均值 65mmol/mol(95%CI 62-68 [8.1%,7.8-8.4]),BCC 组的 HbA1c 变化为 -5mmol/mol(-8 至 -1 [-0.5%,-0.7 至 -0.1]),标准饮食护理组为 -3mmol/mol(-7 至 1 [-0.3%,-0.6 至 0.1]),估计治疗效果为 -2mmol/mol(-7 至 4 [-0.2%,-0.6 至 0.4]);p=0.554。从基线调整后的平均值 4.2mmol/l(3.7 至 4.8),MAGE 在 BCC 组变化 -16%(-33 至 5),在标准饮食护理组变化 -3%(-21 至 20),估计治疗效果为 -14%(-36 至 16);p=0.319。只有 BCC 有利于中位数碳水化合物估计误差(估计治疗差异-55%(-70 至 -32);p<0.001)在多次测试调整后仍然显著。
未发现血糖方面的影响,但将 BCC 作为标准饮食护理的补充组成部分纳入治疗可提高 T2D 患者碳水化合物摄入量的估计技能。