目的 探讨2型糖尿病（T2DM）住院患者在完成持续皮下胰岛素输注（CSII）强化治疗后，转换为德谷胰岛素（IDeg）、德谷门冬双胰岛素（IDegAsp）或德谷胰岛素利拉鲁肽注射液（IDegLira）3种方案时的血糖控制特征及临床适用性，并比较不同转换策略在血糖达标、波动控制及治疗简化方面的差异。 方法 回顾性收集住院T2DM患者的临床资料。所有患者均由CSII过渡至IDeg、IDegAsp或IDegLira方案之一，并采用持续葡萄糖监测（CGM）评估转换前后的血糖控制情况。比较各组平均血糖（MG）、血糖管理指标（GMI）、目标范围内时间（TIR）、高于目标范围时间（TAR）、低于目标范围时间（TBR）及血糖变异系数（CV）等指标的变化。 结果 3种转换方案均可在CSII停用后实现平稳衔接，并使多数CGM指标得到改善。与转换前相比，患者MG和GMI下降，TIR升高，同时CV及TAR减少。TBR在IDegAsp组和IDegLira组总体保持稳定，而IDeg组出现轻度上升［0.00（0.00，0.01）% vs. 0.01（0.00，0.02）%，P = 0.009）］。进一步组间比较显示，IDegAsp组和IDegLira组在提升TIR、降低MG、GMI、CV、TAR及TBR方面整体优于IDeg组。经指尖血糖复核后，本研究纳入患者未发生低血糖事件。另有58%的IDegLira组患者仅需联合1种或无需额外降糖药物即可达到较满意的血糖控制水平。 结论 对于接受过CSII强化治疗的住院T2DM患者，转换至IDeg基础方案均有助于进一步优化血糖管理。其中，IDegAsp和IDegLira在改善葡萄糖达标率、降低血糖波动及减少低血糖风险方面表现更为突出；同时，IDegLira有望以更少的联合用药实现较理想的控制效果，提示其在出院后治疗衔接中具有较好的临床实用价值。

Objective To investigate the glycemic profiles and clinical practicality of transitioning hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus （T2DM） from continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion （CSII） to insulin degludec （IDeg）， insulin degludec/aspart （IDegAsp）， or insulin degludec/liraglutide （IDegLira）， and to compare the relative advantages of these post-CSII strategies in terms of achieving glucose targets， glycemic stability， and regimen simplification. Methods This retrospective study recruited hospitalized patients with T2DM who were switched from CSII to one of three degludec-based regimens：IDeg， IDegAsp， or IDegLira. Continuous glucose monitoring （CGM） was employed to assess glycemic outcomes before and after the treatment conversion. Alterations in mean glucose （MG）， glucose management indicator （GMI）， time in range （TIR）， time above range （TAR）， time below range （TBR）， and coefficient of variation （CV） were analyzed and compared among groups. Results All three regimens enabled a clinically stable transition subsequent to the discontinuation of CSII and were linked to an overall improvement in CGM-derived metrics. After the treatment conversion， the MG and GMI decreased， while the TIR increased significantly； simultaneously， the CV and TAR were diminished. The TBR remained largely unchanged in the IDegAsp and IDegLira groups， yet it showed a slight increase in the IDeg group （0.00% ［0.00， 0.01］ vs. 0.01% ［0.00， 0.02］， P = 0.009）. Comparisons between groups further demonstrated that IDegAsp and IDegLira outperformed IDeg， presenting more favorable values for TIR， MG， GMI， CV， TAR， and TBR. Suspected hypoglycemic events detected by CGM were not verified through capillary glucose re-checking. Additionally， 58% of patients receiving IDegLira achieved satisfactory glycemic control with no more than one concomitant glucose-lowering agent. Conclusions For hospitalized patients with T2DM who have completed CSII-based intensive therapy， transitioning to a degludec-based regimen can further enhance glycemic management. Among the evaluated options， IDegAsp and IDegLira demonstrated more favorable overall performance than IDeg in terms of glucose control， reduction of glucose variability， and outcomes related to hypoglycemia. Notably， IDegLira may provide an additional benefit by reducing the complexity of treatment， making it a potentially practical choice for the transition of the regimen after discharge.