医学
磺酰脲
糖尿病
连续血糖监测
内科学
二甲双胍
肠促胰岛素
2型糖尿病
1型糖尿病
胰岛素
低血糖
内分泌学
随机对照试验
作者
Richard M. Bergenstal,Deborah Mullen,Ellie S. Strock,Mary L. Johnson,Min X. Xi
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2021.108106
摘要
Evaluate whether structured BGM testing (BGM) or real-time CGM (CGM) lead to improved glucose control (A1c). Determine which approach optimized glucose control more effectively. METHODS-MULTI-ARM PARALLEL: trial of three type 2 diabetes (T2D) therapies ± metformin: (1) sulfonylurea (SU), (2) incretin (DPP4 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist), or (3) insulin. After a baseline CGM, 114 adult subjects were randomized to either BGM (4 times daily) or CGM (24/7) for 16 weeks with therapies adjusted every 4 weeks.A1c means decreased from 8.19 to 7.07 (1.12% difference) with CGM (n = 59) and 7.85 to 7.03 (0.82% difference) with BGM (n = 55) (p < 0.001). BGM and CGM groups showed significant improvements in time in range and glucose variability-with no significant difference between the two groups. Clinically important hypoglycemia (<50 mg/dL) was significantly reduced for the CGM group compared with BGM (p < 0.01), particularly in subjects taking insulin or therapies with higher hypoglycemic risk (SU).In T2D, structured, consistent use of glucose data regardless of device (structured BGM or CGM) leads to improvements in A1c control. CGM is more effective than BGM in minimizing hypoglycemia particularly for those using higher hypoglycemic risk therapies.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI