Hirsch Irl B, Draznin Boris, Buse John B, Raghinaru Dan, Spanbauer Charles, Umpierrez Guillermo E, Ullal Jagdeesh, Jones Morgan S, Low Wang Cecilia C, Spanakis Elias K, Chao Jing H, Sibayan Judy, Kollman Craig, Zabala Zohyra E, Moazzami Bobak, Reynolds Shari L, Ferrara Wanda, Fulghum Karla, Kass Alex, Armstrong Chase, Gilani Faryal, Seggelke Stacey, Churchill Jade, Monye Joseph O, Choe Monica Y, Scott William, Baran Jesica D, Bais Rajlaxmi, Khakpour Dori, Pasquel Francisco J, Davis Georgia M, Vellanki Priyathama, Kershaw Erin E, Gligorijevic Nikola, Goley April, Garg Avni, Alexander Bonnie, Matson Brooke C, Diner Jamie, Klein Klara R, Adair Whitney B, Choksi Palak, Huang Michelle, Vinh Jennifer, Singh Lakshmi G, Beck Roy W
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
University of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Diabetes Care. 2025 Jan 1;48(1):118-124. doi: 10.2337/dc24-1779.
To evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could assist providers in intensifying glycemic management in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.
At six academic hospitals, adults with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in a non-intensive care setting were randomly assigned to either standard therapy with glucose target 140-180 mg/dL (standard group) or intensive therapy with glucose target 90-130 mg/dL guided by CGM (intensive group). The primary outcome was mean glucose measured with CGM (blinded in standard group), and the key secondary outcome was CGM glucose <54 mg/dL.
For the 110 participants included in the primary analysis, mean ± SD age was 61 ± 12 years and mean HbA1c was 8.9 ± 2.3% (73.8 ± 1.6 mmol/mol). During the study, CGM-measured mean glucose was 170 mg/dL for the intensive group (n = 60) vs. 175 mg/dL for the standard group (n = 50; risk-adjusted difference -7 mg/dL, 95% CI -19 to 5; P = 0.25). Only 7% of the intensive group achieved the mean glucose target range of 90-130 mg/dL. CGM readings <54 mg/dL were infrequent (0.2% for intensive and 0.4% for standard; adjusted treatment group difference -0.1%, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.3). One severe hypoglycemia event occurred in the standard group.
The study's glucose management approach using CGM did not improve glucose levels compared with standard glucose management in the non-intensive care unit hospital setting. A glucose target of 90-130 mg/dL may not be realistic in the current environment of insulin management in the hospital.
评估持续葡萄糖监测(CGM)能否帮助医护人员加强对2型糖尿病住院患者的血糖管理。
在六家学术医院中,将非重症监护环境下住院的2型糖尿病成年患者随机分为两组,一组接受血糖目标为140 - 180 mg/dL的标准治疗(标准组),另一组接受由CGM指导的血糖目标为90 - 130 mg/dL的强化治疗(强化组)。主要结局是用CGM测量的平均血糖(标准组为盲法测量),关键次要结局是CGM血糖<54 mg/dL。
纳入主要分析的110名参与者中,平均年龄±标准差为61±12岁,平均糖化血红蛋白为8.9±2.3%(73.8±1.6 mmol/mol)。在研究期间,强化组(n = 60)用CGM测量的平均血糖为170 mg/dL,标准组(n = 50)为175 mg/dL(风险调整差异为 -7 mg/dL,95%置信区间为 -19至5;P = 0.25)。强化组只有7%的患者达到了9