文献精选
Dirk Lund Christensen1 · Cathrine Olesen Emborg1,2 · Kaushik Laxmidas Ramaiya3 · Venance Philip Maro4 · Ib Christian Bygbjerg1 · Joseph Sironga4,5 · Jens Juul Holst6 · Kajiru Kilonzo4 · Bolette Hartmann6 · Flemming Dela6,7 · Steen Larsen6,8 · Jørn Wulff Helge6
Received: 13 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 April 2026 © The Author(s) 2026
Abstract
Aims Rural, agro-pastoralist Maasai in East Africa exhibit low prevalence of diabetes, yet little is known about their physi-ological response to glucose loads and whether sex has an impact on glucose metabolism, including incretin hormones.
Methods We included 58 (29 men, 29 women) adult Maasai without diabetes living in rural Tanzania. Clinical background characteristics were measured, and they were exposed to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) after an overnight fast. Plasma glucose, insulin/C-peptide, glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like pep-tide-1 (GLP-1) were analysed.
Results Mean age was 34.8 (range 17–65) years, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 20.3 (range 14.0-30.9) kg/m2 with two individuals being overweight and 14 being underweight. Men had a higher mean fasting glucose concentration (5.2 vs. 4.9 mmol/L, p=0.031), while women exhibited a higher OGTT-derived mean GLP-1 concentration at 2-h (8.5 vs. 5.1 pmol/L, p=0.005). Total area-under-the-curve (tAUC) for GLP-1 was higher in women compared to men (1336 vs. 870 pmol x min, p=0.011). Sex- and BMI-adjusted regression analyses for tAUC showed higher values of insulin, C-peptide and GLP-1 in women (p<0.10).
Conclusions Sex differences were found in fasting glucose and OGTT-derived insulin/C-peptide and GLP-1 concentrations. Research using more sophisticated methodology is needed to further explain the glucose metabolism phenotype in Maasai
Keywords Oral glucose tolerance test · Incretin hormones · Sex differences · Maasai · Sub-Saharan Africa
Seiji Tomofuji1 · Shin Urai2 · Kei Yoshino2,3 · Hironori Bando1 · Yushi Hirota1
Received: 25 November 2025 / Accepted: 9 March 2026 © The Author(s) 2026
Abstract
Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced diabetes is a rare endocrine immune-related adverse event, and long-term pancreatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings after disease onset have not been well characterized.
Case presentation An individual developed abrupt hyperglycemia during pembrolizumab therapy for recurrent renal cell carcinoma and subsequently required insulin therapy. Serum C-peptide rapidly declined to below the detection threshold, whereas pancreatic enzyme levels remained within normal limits throughout follow-up. MRI performed 1 day after diagno-sis demonstrated diffuse high signal intensity on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and reduced apparent diffusion coeffi-cient (ADC) values throughout the pancreas. Serial imaging over 25 months showed progressive pancreatic atrophy, whereas the DWI/ADC features persisted.
Conclusion This case provides a new descriptive longitudinal radiological observation of persistent diffusion-related pancre-atic MRI findings and progressive pancreatic atrophy after the onset of ICI-induced diabetes.
Keywords Type 1 diabetes · Immune checkpoint inhibitor · PD-1 antibody · Immune-related adverse event · Magnetic resonance imaging
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。
