Continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Autor: | Jancev M; Department of Vascular Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Vissers TACM; Department of Vascular Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Visseren FLJ; Department of Vascular Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., van Bon AC; Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands., Serné EH; Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., DeVries JH; Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands., de Valk HW; Department of Vascular Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands., van Sloten TT; Department of Vascular Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. t.t.vansloten@umcutrecht.nl. |
---|---|
Jazyk: | angličtina |
Zdroj: | Diabetologia [Diabetologia] 2024 May; Vol. 67 (5), pp. 798-810. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 16. |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00125-024-06107-6 |
Abstrakt: | Aims/hypothesis: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, but the effects on glycaemic control are unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a comprehensive overview of the effect of CGM on glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We performed a systematic review using Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until 2 May 2023. We included RCTs investigating real-time CGM (rtCGM) or intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with type 2 diabetes. Studies with an intervention duration <6 weeks or investigating professional CGM, a combination of CGM and additional glucose-lowering treatment strategies or GlucoWatch were not eligible. Change in HbA Results: We found 12 RCTs comprising 1248 participants, with eight investigating rtCGM and four isCGM. Compared with SMBG, CGM use (rtCGM or isCGM) led to a mean difference (MD) in HbA Conclusions/interpretation: CGM use compared with SMBG is associated with improvements in glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. However, all studies were open label. In addition, outcome data on incident severe hypoglycaemia and incident microvascular and macrovascular complications were scarce. Registration: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023418005). (© 2024. The Author(s).) |
Databáze: | MEDLINE |
Externí odkaz: |