Efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in patients with chronic pancreatitis and insulin‐treated diabetes: A randomised, open‐label, crossover trial
Primary result · Time in level 2 hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L)Result — go to the resultMean difference −0.36 % 95% CI −0.78% to 0.06%Authors' conclusion
In patients with chronic pancreatitis and insulin-treated diabetes, CGM increased time in range and reduced time above and below range. These findings highlight the potential of CGM in improving glycaemic control.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with chronic pancreatitis and insulin-treated diabetes; mean age 64.4 ± 8.8 years, 22 men [75.9%]29 completed
- Participants
- 30 patients
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)
- Primary endpoint
- Time in level 2 hypoglycaemia (<3.0 mmol/L)
- Follow-up
- 50 days
Methodological detailsopen-label, crossover, 20-day washout period between periods
- Open-label
- Crossover
- 20-day washout period between periods
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Mean difference
−0.36 %
95% CI −0.78% to 0.06%
P = 0.09
CGMvs SMBG
mean difference −0.36 % (95% CI −0.78% to 0.06%); P = 0.09
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Mean difference (%) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) | 7.46 (1.67%–13.25%) | P = 0.01 | |
| TAR (>10.0 mmol/L) | −6.55 (−12.59% to −0.51%) | P = 0.04 | |
| TBR (<3.9 mmol/L) | −0.91 (−1.79% to −0.03%) | P = 0.04 | |
| −20−1001020Difference, % (linear scale) |
Safety
- No differences were observed for the safety endpoints
Original publication
Efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in patients with chronic pancreatitis and insulin‐treated diabetes: A randomised, open‐label, crossover trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 18 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →