Effect of continuous glucose monitoring compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in gestational diabetes patients with HbA1c<6%: a randomized controlled trial

被引:15
作者
Lai, Mengyu [1 ]
Weng, Jianrong [2 ]
Yang, Jiaying [1 ]
Gong, Yujia [1 ]
Fang, Fang [1 ]
Li, Na [1 ]
Kang, Mei [3 ]
Xu, Xianming [2 ]
Wang, Yufan [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Gen Hosp, Dept Endocrinol & Metab, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Gen Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Gen Hosp, Clin Res Ctr, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
gestational diabetes mellitus; continuous glucose monitoring; self-monitoring of blood glucose; gestational weight gain; cost; WEIGHT-GAIN; RISK; PREGNANCY; ADIPOSITY; CHILDHOOD; MELLITUS; OBESITY;
D O I
10.3389/fendo.2023.1174239
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMGB) in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) MethodsFrom January 2019 to February 2021, 154 GDM patients with HbA1c<6% at 24-28 gestational weeks were recruited and assigned randomly to either SMBG only or CGM in addition to SMBG, with 77 participants in each group. CGM was used in combination with fingertip blood glucose monitoring every four weeks until antepartum in the CGM group, while in the SMBG group, fingertip blood glucose monitoring was applied. The CGM metrics were evaluated after 8 weeks, HbA1c levels before delivery, gestational weight gain (GWG), adverse pregnancy outcomes and CGM medical costs were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with patients in the SMBG group, the CGM group patients had similar times in range (TIRs) after 8 weeks (100.00% (93.75-100.00%) versus 99.14% (90.97-100.00%), p=0.183) and HbA1c levels before delivery (5.31 +/- 0.06% versus 5.35 +/- 0.06%, p=0.599). The proportion with GWG within recommendations was higher in the CGM group (59.7% versus 40.3%, p=0.046), and the newborn birth weight was lower (3123.79 +/- 369.58 g versus 3291.56 +/- 386.59 g, p=0.015). There were no significant differences in prenatal or obstetric outcomes, e.g., cesarean delivery rate, hypertensive disorders, preterm births, macrosomia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress, and neonatal intensive care unit admission >24 h, between the two groups. Considering glucose monitoring, SMBG group patients showed a lower cost than CGM group patients. ConclusionsFor GDM patients with HbA1c<6%, regular SMBG is a more economical blood glucose monitoring method and can achieve a similar performance in glycemic control as CGM, while CGM is beneficial for ideal GWG.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Ahmed Rashid J, 2021, CMAJ Open, V9, pE627, DOI [10.9778/cmajo.20200128, 10.9778/cmajo.20200128]
[2]   Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as an educational tool for patients with gestational diabetes [J].
Alfadhli, Eman ;
Osman, Eman ;
Basri, Taghreed .
DIABETOLOGY & METABOLIC SYNDROME, 2016, 8
[3]   Original HbA1c at the time of testing for gestational diabetes identifies women at risk for pregnancy complications [J].
Barbry, Floriane ;
Lemaitre, Madleen ;
Ternynck, Camille ;
Wallet, Helene ;
Cazaubiel, Marie ;
Labreuche, Julien ;
Subtil, Damien ;
Vambergue, Anne .
DIABETES & METABOLISM, 2022, 48 (03)
[4]   Glycemic variability:: A hemoglobin A1c-independent risk factor for diabetic complications [J].
Brownlee, M ;
Hirsch, IB .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2006, 295 (14) :1707-1708
[5]   Increased risk of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus, a target group in general practice for preventive interventions: A population-based cohort study [J].
Daly, Barbara ;
Toulis, Konstantinos A. ;
Thomas, Neil ;
Gokhale, Krishna ;
Martine, James ;
Webber, Jonathan ;
Keerthy, Deepi ;
Jolly, Kate ;
Saravanan, Ponnusamy ;
Nirantharakumar, Krishnarajah .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2018, 15 (01)
[6]   Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023 [J].
ElSayed, Nuha A. ;
Aleppo, Grazia ;
Aroda, Vanita R. ;
Bannuru, Raveendhara R. ;
Brown, Florence M. ;
Bruemmer, Dennis ;
Collins, Billy S. ;
Hilliard, Marisa E. ;
Isaacs, Diana ;
Johnson, Eric L. ;
Kahan, Scott ;
Khunti, Kamlesh ;
Leon, Jose ;
Lyons, Sarah K. ;
Perry, Mary Lou ;
Prahalad, Priya ;
Pratley, Richard E. ;
Seley, Jane Jeffrie ;
Stanton, Robert C. ;
Gabbay, Robert A. .
DIABETES CARE, 2023, 46 :S254-S266
[7]  
Gou BH, 2019, CHINESE MED J-PEKING, V132, P154, DOI [10.1097/CM9.0000000000000036, 10.1097/cm9.0000000000000036]
[8]   Adiposity, Dysmetabolic Traits, and Earlier Onset of Female Puberty in Adolescent Offspring of Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Clinical Study Within the Danish National Birth Cohort [J].
Grunnet, Louise G. ;
Hansen, Susanne ;
Hjort, Line ;
Madsen, Camilla M. ;
Kampmann, Freja B. ;
Thuesen, Anne Cathrine B. ;
Granstromi, Charlotta ;
Strom, Marin ;
Maslova, Ekaterina ;
Frikke-Schmidt, Ruth ;
Damm, Peter ;
Chavarro, Jorge E. ;
Hu, Frank B. ;
Olsen, Sjurdur F. ;
Vaag, Allan .
DIABETES CARE, 2017, 40 (12) :1746-1755
[9]   Associations of mid-pregnancy HbA1c with gestational diabetes and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in high-risk Taiwanese women [J].
Ho, Yi-Ran ;
Wang, Panchalli ;
Lu, Mei-Chun ;
Tseng, Shih-Ting ;
Yang, Chun-Pai ;
Yan, Yuan-Horng .
PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (05)
[10]   The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes [J].
Huang, Elbert S. ;
O'Grady, Michael ;
Basu, Anirban ;
Winn, Aaron ;
John, Priya ;
Lee, Joyce ;
Meltzer, David ;
Kollman, Craig ;
Laffel, Lori ;
Tamborlane, William ;
Weinzimer, Stuart ;
Wysocki, Tim .
DIABETES CARE, 2010, 33 (06) :1269-1274