Most hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from continuous glucose monitoring compared to point-of-care glucose testing in a non-intensive care unit setting: A heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis

IF 5.4 2区医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM

Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1111/dom.16297

Mikkel Thor Olsen PhD, Signe Hjejle Jensen MD, Louise Mathorne Rasmussen RN, Carina Kirstine Klarskov PhD, Birgitte Lindegaard PhD, Jonas Askø Andersen PhD, Hans Gottlieb PhD, Suzanne Lunding PhD, Katrine Bagge Hansen PhD, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard DMSc, Peter Lommer Kristensen PhD

{"title":"Most hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from continuous glucose monitoring compared to point-of-care glucose testing in a non-intensive care unit setting: A heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis","authors":"Mikkel Thor Olsen PhD, Signe Hjejle Jensen MD, Louise Mathorne Rasmussen RN, Carina Kirstine Klarskov PhD, Birgitte Lindegaard PhD, Jonas Askø Andersen PhD, Hans Gottlieb PhD, Suzanne Lunding PhD, Katrine Bagge Hansen PhD, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard DMSc, Peter Lommer Kristensen PhD","doi":"10.1111/dom.16297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding whether improved glycaemic outcomes from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to point-of-care (POC) glucose testing apply uniformly to all hospitalised non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes or vary among subgroups is crucial for allocating healthcare resources.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This two-site randomised controlled trial DIAbetes TEam and Cgm (DIATEC) enrolled 166 non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes management was based on either POC glucose testing or CGM. Diabetes management was carried out by general hospital staff, under the guidance of specialised diabetes teams, using insulin titration protocols in both groups. We conducted heterogeneity of treatment effect regression analyses to assess whether certain patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, haemoglobin A1c, etc.) modified the effects of CGM, compared to POC glucose testing, on the glycaemic outcomes time in/above/below range, mean glucose level, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and hypoglycaemic events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed, suggesting that all patients benefited equally from CGM compared to POC glucose testing regarding glycaemic outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>From a glycaemic perspective, CGM could be widely recommended for most non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes, as its glycaemic benefits over POC glucose testing appear consistent regardless of individual characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":158,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism","volume":"27 5","pages":"2857-2863"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.16297","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

Understanding whether improved glycaemic outcomes from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to point-of-care (POC) glucose testing apply uniformly to all hospitalised non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes or vary among subgroups is crucial for allocating healthcare resources.

Materials and Methods

This two-site randomised controlled trial DIAbetes TEam and Cgm (DIATEC) enrolled 166 non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes management was based on either POC glucose testing or CGM. Diabetes management was carried out by general hospital staff, under the guidance of specialised diabetes teams, using insulin titration protocols in both groups. We conducted heterogeneity of treatment effect regression analyses to assess whether certain patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, haemoglobin A1c, etc.) modified the effects of CGM, compared to POC glucose testing, on the glycaemic outcomes time in/above/below range, mean glucose level, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and hypoglycaemic events.

Results

No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed, suggesting that all patients benefited equally from CGM compared to POC glucose testing regarding glycaemic outcomes.

Conclusions

From a glycaemic perspective, CGM could be widely recommended for most non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes, as its glycaemic benefits over POC glucose testing appear consistent regardless of individual characteristics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 医学-内分泌学与代谢

CiteScore

10.90

自引率

6.90%

发文量

319

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism is primarily a journal of clinical and experimental pharmacology and therapeutics covering the interrelated areas of diabetes, obesity and metabolism. The journal prioritises high-quality original research that reports on the effects of new or existing therapies, including dietary, exercise and lifestyle (non-pharmacological) interventions, in any aspect of metabolic and endocrine disease, either in humans or animal and cellular systems. ‘Metabolism’ may relate to lipids, bone and drug metabolism, or broader aspects of endocrine dysfunction. Preclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetic studies, meta-analyses and those addressing drug safety and tolerability are also highly suitable for publication in this journal. Original research may be published as a main paper or as a research letter.