自我血糖监测的血糖值在目标范围内时间与连续血糖监测的时间在目标范围内时间的比较。
Comparison of Points in Range Measured by the Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose and Time in Range Measured by the Continuous Glucose Monitoring.
机构信息
Division of Nephrology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, 143 Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa 259-1193, Japan.
出版信息
Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 2024 Sep 20;49(3):105-109.
OBJECTIVE
Usage of time in range (TIR), measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), has become common as a new index of glycemic control. Therefore, we compared points in range (PIR), measured by the self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), with TIR.
METHODS
In this prospective observational study, 43 patients with diabetes wore FreeStyle Libre Pro and conducted SMBG at the same time. Time above range (TAR), TIR, time below range (TBR) and points above range (PAR), PIR, points below range (PBR) were compared, respectively.
RESULTS
The median PAR was 35.7%, while the median TAR was 20.8% for CGM. Conversely, the PIR was 64.3%, while the TIR was 74.9%; similarly, the PBR was 0%, while the TBR was 1.7%. A significant positive correlation was found between PIR and TIR (r = 0.784, P < 0.001). In the Bland-Altman analysis performed to assess the association between the two methods, PIR showed a -9.9% bias compared with TIR.
CONCLUSIONS
PIR may be used in patients who find it difficult to use CGM as a substitute of TIR, however caution is needed when interpreting the data due to the difference between PIR and TIR.
目的
通过连续血糖监测（CGM）测量的时间在目标范围内（TIR）已成为衡量血糖控制的新指标。因此，我们比较了自我血糖监测（SMBG）测量的血糖在目标范围内（PIR）与 TIR。
方法
在这项前瞻性观察研究中，43 名糖尿病患者佩戴 FreeStyle Libre Pro 并同时进行 SMBG。分别比较了 TAR、TIR、TBR 和 PAR、PIR、PBR。
结果
CGM 的中位数 PAR 为 35.7%，而中位数 TAR 为 20.8%。相反，PIR 为 64.3%，而 TIR 为 74.9%；同样，PBR 为 0%，而 TBR 为 1.7%。PIR 与 TIR 之间存在显著正相关（r = 0.784，P < 0.001）。在评估两种方法之间关联的 Bland-Altman 分析中，与 TIR 相比，PIR 显示出-9.9%的偏差。
结论
在难以使用 CGM 作为 TIR 替代的患者中可以使用 PIR，但由于 PIR 和 TIR 之间存在差异，在解释数据时需要谨慎。
Zotero 插件