A.Giaccari1 · G. Gliozzo1 · G. Ciccarelli1 · G. Di Giuseppe1 · C. Castellano2 · S. Cum3 · L. Delle Monache4,13 · M. Gallo5 ·M.Lastretti6 · G. Medea7 · M. Monesi8 · R. Napoli9 · B. Pintaudi10 · E. Succurro11 · G. Turchetti
Received: 9 January 2026 / Accepted: 17 March 2026 © The Author(s) 2026
Abstract
Background and aims Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now standard of care among Type 1 diabetes patients, they are still relatively underutilized in Type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in those patients not treated with insulin. Widespread adoption continues to be hindered by a combination of factors. Chief among these is the scarcity of long-term, large-scale clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of the use of CGM in T2D. This meta-analysis aimed to address this gap by comparing CGM with self-blood glucose monitoring (SBMG), with primary outcomes of HbA1c and time in range (TIR) in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated TD2 patients.
Methods and results Following the stringent rules mandated by our National Health Service (which requires a panel com-posed of all stakeholders involved in diabetes treatment, and includes PICO, GRADE, AGREE, and meta-analyses), we performed a systematic review of RCTs that enrolled two groups of individuals with T2D, those treated with insulin (includ-ing basal and basal-bolus regimens), and those receiving treatments other than insulin. All included trials compared CGM with structured blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint. Based on the strength and consistency of the evidence, the panel issued a strong recommendation in favor of CGM for individuals with T2D treated with insulin (including those on basal insulin alone) and for individuals with T2D not treated with insulin, par-ticularly for those with glycated hemoglobin levels≥7%. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, outcomes were positive in both patient groups.
Conclusion CGM represents a clinically effective and cost-efficient approach to optimizing glycemic control in T2D, becom-ing mandatory among individuals on insulin therapy. Our findings support a shift in clinical practice toward the more widespread use of CGM in T2D, with regulatory frameworks and reimbursement policies needing to adapt accordingly.
Keywords CGM · Type 2 Diabetes · Metanalysis · PICO · GRADE · Guidelines
Communicated by Massimo Federici, M.D.
A. Giaccari 该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。
1 Center for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
2 Azienda USL of Modena, Sassuolo Hospital, Sassuolo, Italy
3 Diabetes and Diabetic Foot Care Unit, ASUGI, Monfalcone, Italy
4 National Board Member of FAND (Italian Association for the Rights of Diabetic People), Roma, Italy
5 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, AO SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy
6 Order of Psychologists of Lazio, Rome, Italy
7 Italian Society of General Medicine (SIMG), Florence, Italy
8 Territorial Diabetology Unit, AUSL Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
9 Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
10 Diabetes Unit, Niguarda Cà Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy
11 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
12 Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
13 Patient Advocacy Lab, ALTEMS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
版权归中华医学会所有。
未经授权,不得转载、摘编本刊文章。
引用本文:简喜超, 简扬, 邓呈亮. 2025版《中国糖尿病足防治实践指南》解读[J]. 中华医学美学美容杂志, 2026, 32(2): 99-103. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn114657-20251215-00266.
通信作者:邓呈亮,Email:该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。
糖尿病之友
关于糖尿病的治疗,我有4点建议送给糖友朋友。
建议1:控制血糖
控制血糖应该既包括点血糖(即时血糖),又包括线血糖(血糖波动)和面血糖(糖化血红蛋白)。涵盖3个方面:有没有低血糖;糖化血红蛋白是否达标;血糖波动是否尽可能减少。
没有低血糖+糖化血红蛋白达标=及格;
没有低血糖+糖化血红蛋白达标+血糖波动少=完美。
建议2.关于控糖目标值
国内外各大权威指南都明确给出了血糖控制目标值的建议,但这些目标值都太绝对。笔者更愿意推荐的抗糖目标是:在不发生低血糖的情况下,血糖尽量达到或接近正常(即餐前不低,餐后不高。餐后不高不能以餐前低血糖为代价)。
建议3.关于血糖控制优劣的评估
不仅要看血糖是否达标,还要看有没有低血糖。所以,在制订了降糖策略以后,就要评估这种治疗策略低血糖风险的高低与应对措施。
建议4.关于低血糖
应该既包括血糖值不低的低血糖反应,又包括没有症状的低血糖数值。前者会降低生活质量,主要与降糖速度等有关;后者常常会导致严重低血糖,更需要重视。
选择低血糖风险低的治疗策略。患者一般病程较短,糖化血红蛋白常位于7.0%~9.0%。在饮食、运动干预的基础上,常常需要加用一种或两种口服降糖药物联合使用。由于肥胖在糖尿病人群中多见,对体重改善有帮助(至少无明显增加体重趋势)、低血糖风险又少的药物常常被率先推荐。这些药物包括二甲双胍、糖苷酶抑制剂、DPP-4抑制剂、GLP-1受体激动剂或SGLT-2抑制剂。
对于上述两种情况,低血糖风险尤其是严重低血糖极其少见,所以,血糖控制就应该更严格(达到正常)一些,糖化血红蛋白介于6.0%~6.5%。使用低血糖低风险的药物,也可以在能够耐受的前提下,适当增加剂量,而不必像胰岛素那样,常常因为低血糖而畏手畏脚。目的是追求更好的血糖达标,比如,二甲双胍的最佳效果剂量是2000毫克/天。
作者:陈刚 河北省秦皇岛市抚宁区妇幼保健院副主任医师
伤口世界平台生态圈,以“关爱人间所有伤口患者”为愿景,连接、整合和拓展线上和线下的管理慢性伤口的资源,倡导远程、就近和居家管理慢性伤口,解决伤口专家的碎片化时间的价值创造、诊疗经验的裂变复制、和患者的就近、居家和低成本管理慢性伤口的问题。
2019广东省医疗行业协会伤口管理分会年会
扫一扫了解详情:
任何关于疾病的建议都不能替代执业医师的面对面诊断。所有门诊时间仅供参考,最终以医院当日公布为准。
网友、医生言论仅代表其个人观点,不代表本站同意其说法,请谨慎参阅,本站不承担由此引起的法律责任。