Most hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from continuous glucose monitoring compared to point‐of‐care glucose testing in a non‐intensive care unit setting: A heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis
Authors' conclusion
From a glycaemic perspective, CGM could be widely recommended for most non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes, as its glycaemic benefits over POC glucose testing appear consistent regardless of individual characteristics.
Study context
- Population
- Hospitalised non-ICU patients with T2D; management by general hospital staff guided by specialised diabetes teams
- Participants
- 166 patients
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs point-of-care (POC) glucose testing
- Primary endpoint
- Heterogeneity of treatment effect of CGM vs POC by patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, HbA1c) on time in/above/below range, mean glucose, SD, coefficient of variation (CV) and hypoglycaemic events
Methodological detailstwo-site, heterogeneity of treatment effect regression analyses, Diabetes management by general hospital staff under guidance of specialised diabetes teams, using insulin titration protocols in both groups
- Two-site
- Heterogeneity of treatment effect regression analyses
- Diabetes management by general hospital staff under guidance of specialised diabetes teams, using insulin titration protocols in both groups
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Heterogeneity of treatment effect on glycaemic outcomes
- No heterogeneity of treatment effect observed; all patients benefited equally from CGM vs POC regarding glycaemic outcomes
Original publication
Most hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from continuous glucose monitoring compared to point‐of‐care glucose testing in a non‐intensive care unit setting: A heterogeneity of treatment effect analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 25 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →