4.5 Article

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in dialysis patients with diabetes: The DIALYDIAB pilot study

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 348-354

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.01.026

关键词

Diabetes; Continuous glucose monitoring; End-stage renal disease; Hemodialysis

资金

  1. Sanofi France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The DIALYDIAB trial addresses the contribution of iterative sequences of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in dialysis patients with diabetes. Materials and methods: In this before-after monocentric 12-week pilot study, dialysis patients with diabetes were monitored with self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) 3 times per day during a 6-week period followed by a 5-day CGM recording at 2-week interval during another 6-week period. SMBG and CGM profiles were remotely analyzed by a single diabetes expert who gave therapeutic counseling to dialysis physicians. Results: Fifteen patients who entered the study had a male/female ratio 8/7, age 60.9 +/- 14.8 years, BMI 29.9 +/- 7.8, diabetes duration 19.2 +/- 8.5 years and dialysis duration 6.5 +/- 6.9 years. Treatments were diet alone (20%) or diet plus insulin (80%). Mean CGM glucose level was 8.3 +/- 2.5 mmol/l at baseline (T0), 8.2 +/- 1.6 mmol/l at the end of the SMBG period (T1) (ns) and 7.7 +/- 1.6 mmol/l at the end of the CGM period (T2) (p < 0.05 vs T0). Glucose AUC > 10 mmol/l was 0.9 +/- 1.4 mmol/l/day at T0 and decreased to 0.4 +/- 0.5 at T2 (p < 0.05)) without change in glucose AUC < 3.3 mmol/l. Treatment adaptation was higher during the CGM period (1.4 +/- 1.0 and 2.1 +/- 0.9 treatment change at T1 and T2, respectively; p < 0.05). Conclusions: In patients with diabetes on chronic dialysis, iterative CGM monitoring was associated with more frequent treatment changes and finally, better glucose control, without increased risk of hypoglycemia. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据