实时持续葡萄糖监测 vs 自我血糖监测在2型糖尿病中的随机对照试验
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder worldwide, accounting for about 90% of people living with diabetes.…
要点
- 两组非设备相关不良事件发生率相似,对照组报告2例严重低血糖。
核心结论
- 在基础胰岛素联合现代疗法的2型糖尿病成人中,实时CGM在自我管理和医生支持管理期间均较SMBG改善血糖控制。
研究设计与样本
- 开放标签、平行设计、随机对照优效性试验,在英国24个初级和二级诊疗中心开展。
- 303例参与者按2:1随机分配至CGM组(198例)或SMBG对照组(105例)。
- 研究分两阶段:第1-16周为基础胰岛素自我滴定自我管理;第17-32周为医生支持管理,可按国家指南启动额外治疗。
- 主要终点为16周时组间HbA1c差异,关键次要终点为32周时组间HbA1c差异,均采用治疗策略估计目标。
主要发现
- 两组非设备相关不良事件发生率相似,对照组报告2例严重低血糖。
临床怎么用
- 对于接受基础胰岛素联合SGLT2抑制剂或GLP-1受体激动剂或双GIP/GLP-1受体激动剂治疗且HbA1c未达标的2型糖尿病成人,可考虑使用实时CGM以改善血糖控制。
局限性
- 开放标签设计,参与者和研究 site 工作人员未对分组设盲。
- 研究由Abbott Diabetes Care资助。
以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。
原文
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder worldwide, accounting for about 90% of people living with diabetes. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), a measure of chronic glycaemic exposure, correlates with the risk of long-term complications, which can result in substantial morbidity for people with diabetes and major costs to health-care systems. The value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin and modern therapies remains unclear. FreeDM2 aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of real-time CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial conducted across 24 primary and secondary care centres in the UK enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists or dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists with HbA1c 7·5-11·0%. Participants were assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation by study site, generated by Sealed Envelope) to CGM (intervention) or continuation of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG; control), across two phases: weeks 1-16, self-management with basal insulin self-titration; and weeks 17-32, clinician-supported where additional therapies could be initiated in line with national guidance. Participants and study site staff were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was difference between groups in HbA1c concentrations at 16 weeks, and the key secondary outcome was the difference between groups at 32 weeks, both in the treatment policy estimand. Safety analysis included all randomly assigned participants. The FreeDM2 randomised controlled trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05944432) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 26, 2023, and Jan 31, 2025, 469 individuals underwent screening for potential study inclusion, 140 were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria, and 329 were included in the baseline phase of the study. 26 individuals were then excluded due to insufficient data capture or withdrawal, and 303 participants were randomly assigned; 198 to the CGM intervention group and 105 to the SMBG control group. 204 (67%) participants were male and 99 (33%) were female, the mean age of the cohort was 60·7 years (SD 9·8), and mean diabetes duration was 16·7 years (6·9). Baseline HbA1c concentration was 8·8% (SD 1·0) in the CGM group and 8·8% (1·1) in the control group, decreasing to 8·0% (0·9) in the CGM group and to 8·7% (1·1) in the control group at week 16 (adjusted difference -0·6 [95% CI -0·8 to -0·3]; p<0·0001) and decreasing further to 7·8% (0·9) in the CGM group and to 8·3% (1·2) in the control group at week 32 (adjusted difference -0·5 [95% CI -0·7 to -0·2]; p<0·0001). There was a similar incidence of non-device-related adverse events in both groups, and two instances of severe hypoglycaemia in the control group. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin plus modern therapies, real-time CGM improved glycaemic control versus SMBG during self-management and under clinician-supported management. FUNDING: Abbott Diabetes Care.
引用
- Wilmot EG, Moore P, Sathyapalan T, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2026. PMID: 42035781. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(26)00076-8
供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。