基本碳水化合物计算与标准饮食护理对 2 型糖尿病患者血糖控制的影响(BCC 研究):随机对照试验。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Bettina Ewers, Martin B Blond, Jens M Bruun, Tina Vilsbøll
{"title":"基本碳水化合物计算与标准饮食护理对 2 型糖尿病患者血糖控制的影响(BCC 研究):随机对照试验。","authors":"Bettina Ewers, Martin B Blond, Jens M Bruun, Tina Vilsbøll","doi":"10.1038/s41387-024-00307-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19339,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Diabetes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11211433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of basic carbohydrate counting versus standard dietary care for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (The BCC Study): a randomised, controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Bettina Ewers, Martin B Blond, Jens M Bruun, Tina Vilsbøll\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41387-024-00307-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition & Diabetes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11211433/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition & Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41387-024-00307-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41387-024-00307-0","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

摘要

背景:临床指南建议采用基本碳水化合物计数法(BCC)或类似方法来提高碳水化合物估算技能,并努力提高碳水化合物摄入量的一致性,从而改善血糖控制。然而,这种方法在 2 型糖尿病(T2D)中的应用证据有限:目的:研究 BCC 结构化教育计划作为标准膳食护理的补充,对 2 型糖尿病患者血糖控制的效果: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 53-97 mmol/mol (7.0-11.0%) 的 T2D 患者被随机分配(1:1)到 BCC 或标准饮食护理中。主要结果是干预6个月后组间HbA1c或血糖变异性(以血糖偏移平均幅度[MAGE]计算)的变化差异:2018 年 9 月至 2021 年 7 月期间,48 名参与者被随机分配,其中 23 人接受 BCC,25 人接受标准饮食护理。7名参与者未接受分配的干预。基线调整后的平均值为 65 mmol/mol(95% CI 62-68 [8.1%,7.8-8.4]),BCC 的 HbA1c 变化了-5 mmol/mol(-8 至 -1 [-0.5%,-0.7 至 -0.1]),而标准饮食护理的 HbA1c 变化了-5 mmol/mol(-8 至 -1 [-0.5%,-0.7 至 -0.1])。1]),而标准护理则为-3 mmol/mol (-7 to 1 [-0.3%, -0.6 to 0.1]),估计治疗效果为-2 mmol/mol (-7 to 4 [-0.2%, -0.6 to 0.4]);P = 0.554。从基线调整后的平均值 4.2 毫摩尔/升(3.7 至 4.8)开始,BCC 的 MAGE 变化了-16%(-33 至 5),标准护理的 MAGE 变化了-3%(-21 至 20),估计治疗效果为-14%(-36 至 16);P = 0.319。只有中位数碳水化合物估算误差有利于 BCC(估计治疗效果差异为-55%(-70 至-32);p 结论:BCC 和标准护理的治疗效果差异为-3%(-21 至 20);p = 0.319:未发现对血糖的影响,但将 BCC 作为标准膳食护理的补充部分,可提高 T2D 患者估计碳水化合物摄入量的技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effects of basic carbohydrate counting versus standard dietary care for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (The BCC Study): a randomised, controlled trial.

Effects of basic carbohydrate counting versus standard dietary care for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (The BCC Study): a randomised, controlled trial.

Background: 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.

Objective: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition & Diabetes
Nutrition & Diabetes ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-NUTRITION & DIETETICS
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Diabetes is a peer-reviewed, online, open access journal bringing to the fore outstanding research in the areas of nutrition and chronic disease, including diabetes, from the molecular to the population level.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信