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。
D.Caldeira1,2,3· M. Alves3,4,5 · J. J. Ferreira3,4 · F. J. Pinto1,2
Received: 5 October 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published online: 18 January 2023 © The Author(s) 2023
D. Caldeira
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 Centro Cardiovascular da Universidade de Lisboa–CCUL (CCUL@RISE), Faculdade de Medicina, CEMBE, CAML, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
2 Serviço de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria–CHULN, Lisbon, Portugal
3 Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
4 Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
5 Serviço de Medicina III, Hospital Pulido Valente, CHLN, Lisbon, Portugal
Purpose Aspirin use among patients with diabetes in primary prevention is still a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the potential cardiovascular risk benefit of aspirin in primary prevention, using data from a contemporary cohort.
Methods Retrospective analysis of the VITAL cohort with>20,000 individuals at primary prevention who were followed for a median of 5.3 years. The population was evaluated according to the baseline diabetes status, and then aspirin use was evaluated among diabetic patients. Cox regression models were used to estimate the risks of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. The estimates were reported using adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
Results Diabetic patients (n=3549; 13.7%) showed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.61, 95%CI 1.33–1.94), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 1.36 95%CI 1.11–1.68) than non-diabetic population. Diabetic patients taking aspirin were older, more frequently man, hypertensive, current users of statins, and current smokers compared with diabetic patients who did not use aspirin at baseline. There was no difference between diabetic aspirin users and non-users regarding all-cause mortality (HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.59, 1.10), MACE (HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.64, 1.33), coronary heart disease (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.67, 1.43), or stroke (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.48, 1.58).
Conclusions The VITAL data confirmed diabetes as an important risk factor for cardiovascular events in a contemporary cohort but did not show cardiovascular benefits of aspirin in primary prevention among people with diabetes who were shown to be at higher risk of cardiovascular events.
Keywords Cardiovascular disease · Primary prevention · Aspirin · Diabetes
AUTHORS
Pam Chen1,2, Nalini Campillo Vilorio3 , Ketan Dhatariya4, 5, William Jeffcoate6 , Ralf Lobmann7 , Caroline McIntosh8 , Alberto Piaggesi9 , John Steinberg10, Prash Vas11, Vijay Viswanathan12, Stephanie Wu13, Fran Game14, on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot
INSTITUTIONS
1 Joondalup Health Campus, Ramsay Healthcare Australia, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
2 Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
3 Department of Diabetology, Diabetic Foot Unit, Plaza de la Salud General Hospital, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
4 Elsie Bertram Diabetes Centre, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
5 Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
6 Retired physician, Nottingham, UK
7 Clinic for Endocrinology, Diabetology and Geriatrics, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
8 Podiatric Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Galway, Ireland
9 Diabetic Foot Section, Department of Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy
10 Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC, USA
11 King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
12 MV Hospital for Diabetes and Prof M Viswanathan Diabetes Research Center, Chennai, India
13 Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, USA
14 University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
Sicco A. Bus1,2, Isabel C.N Sacco3 , Matilde Monteiro-Soares4,5,6, Anita Raspovic7 , Joanne Paton8 , Anne Rasmussen9 , Larry A. Lavery10, Jaap J. van Netten1,2, on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot
1 Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2 Amsterdam Movement Sciences, program Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3 Physical Therapy, Speech and Occupational Therapy department, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
4 Higher School of Health of the Portuguese Red Cross, Lisbon, Portugal
5 Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
6 RISE@ CINTESIS, Faculty of Medicine, Oporto University, Porto, Portugal
7 Discipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
8 School of Health Professions, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
9 Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
10 Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
Éric Senneville1 , Zaina Albalawi2 , Suzanne A.
van Asten3 , Zulfiqarali G. Abbas4 , Geneve Allison5 ,
Javier Aragón-Sánchez6 , John M. Embil7 , Lawrence
A. Lavery8 , Majdi Alhasan9 , Orhan Oz10, Ilker
Uçkay11, Vilma Urbančič-Rovan12, Zhang-Rong Xu13,
Edgar J.G. Peters14, on behalf of the International
Working Group on the Diabetic Foot
1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Gustave Dron Hospital, Tourcoing, France
2 Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Memorial University, Canada
3 Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
4 Abbas Medical Centre, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
5 Tufts Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
6 La Paloma Hospital, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
7 Alberta Public Laboratories, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
8 Department of Plastic Surgery, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
9 Department of Medicine, Prisma Health-Midlands, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
10 UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
11 Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
12 Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Centre, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
13 Diabetes Centre, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Beijing, China
14 Department of Internal Medicine, Infection and Immunity Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
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。