Comparison of the FreeStyle Libre Pro Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System and Point-of-Care Capillary Glucose Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen

CGM in the Hospital: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital setting is growing with more patients using these devices at home and when admitted to the hospital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, most evidence for CGM use in the inpatient setting was limited to small studies utilizing outdated CGM technology and analyzing accuracy of sensor measurements. Previous studies have shown reduced sensor accuracy during extreme hypo- or hyperglycemia, rapid fluctuations of glucose, compression of the sensor itself, and in those who are critically ill. Studies that are more recent have shown CGM to have adequate accuracy and may be effective in reducing hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients; some studies have also showed improvement in time in target glycemic range. Furthermore, CGM may reduce nursing workload, cost of inpatient care, and use of personal protective equipment and face-to-face patient care especially for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will describe the evidence for use of CGM in hospitalized critically ill or non-critically ill patients, address accuracy and safety considerations, and outline paths for future implementation.

Hospital Diabetes Meeting 2022

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by Diabetes Technology Society on April 1 and April 2, 2022. This meeting brought together experts in diabetes technology to discuss various new developments in the field of managing diabetes in hospitalized patients. Meeting topics included (1) digital health and the hospital, (2) blood glucose targets, (3) software for inpatient diabetes, (4) surgery, (5) transitions, (6) coronavirus disease and diabetes in the hospital, (7) drugs for diabetes, (8) continuous glucose monitoring, (9) quality improvement, (10) diabetes care and educatinon, and (11) uniting people, process, and technology to achieve optimal glycemic management. This meeting covered new technology that will enable better care of people with diabetes if they are hospitalized.

Evaluation of the performance and usability of a novel continuous glucose monitoring system

Background

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can help manage diabetes mellitus (DM) and prevent hypoglycemia. This study aimed to evaluate the performance and usability of a novel SiJoy GS1 CGM system.

Methods

This multicenter trial enrolled participants with DM. Based on the comparison of glucose values measured by SiJoy GS1 CGM and venous blood glucose test, the 20/20% consistency and mean absolute relative difference (MARD%) were calculated, as well as Clarke and consensus error grid analysis. Product usability was evaluated by questionnaire completed by participants. Any occurrence of adverse events (AE) was documented.

Results

Seventy participants were included in the study. The mean age of participants was 41.5 ± 13.2 years, among which 29 (42.0%) were male, with the DM course of 8.6 ± 7.5 years. A total of 39 (56.5%) of them had type 1 DM, 24 (34.8%) had type 2 DM, and 6 (8.7%) were others for DM. The 20/20% consistency achieved 91.82%, which was higher than the target 65%. The percentage of A + B zones of Clarke and consensus error grid was 99.22% and 99.90%, respectively. The MARD value was 8.83% ± 4.03%. The mean score of usability questionnaire was 86.59 ± 5.17 out of 90. AE were observed in only one participant (mild fever), and no severe AEs occurred.

Conclusions

The SiJoy GS1 CGM system achieved satisfactory performance and usability. No severe AEs occurred and mild AE was reported in only one case.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Adult Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures

CONTEXT

Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.

Safety and Efficacy of Inpatient Diabetes Management with Non-insulin Agents: an Overview of International Practices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of inpatient diabetes has advanced significantly over the last 20 years, leading to the development of personalized treatment approaches. However, outdated guidelines still recommend the use of basal-bolus insulin therapy as the preferred treatment approach, and against the use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several observational and prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that oral anti-hyperglycemic agents are widely used in the hospital, including studies of DPP-4 agents and GLP-1 agonists. With advances in the field of inpatient diabetes management, a paradigm shift has occurred, from an approach of recommending "basal-bolus regimens" for all patients to a more precision medicine option for hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes.

The impact of nursing staff education on diabetes inpatient glucose management: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients in hospital have diabetes, with most of them cared for by non-specialist staff. The effect of diabetes education for staff on patient outcomes, as well as the most effective method of staff education is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare diabetes outcomes in medical wards where nursing staff were offered one face-to-face (F2F) session followed by access to online education (online), F2F education only, or standard care (control).

METHODS

We conducted a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial involving 16-weeks baseline/rollout followed by a 28-week post-intervention period across three medical wards (clusters) in a Sydney Teaching Hospital. The online ward provided an online competency-based diabetes education program and 1-h F2F teaching from a diabetes nurse educator (DNE), the F2F ward provided four separate 1-h teaching sessions by a DNE, with no additional sessions in the control ward. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included good diabetes days (GDD), hypoglycaemia and medication errors. Poisson and binary logistic regression were used to compare clusters.

RESULTS

Staff attendance/completion of ≥ 2 topics was greater with online than F2F education [39/48 (81%) vs 10/33 (30%); p < 0.001]. Among the 827/881 patients, there was no difference in LOS change between online [Median(IQR) 5(2-8) to 4(2-7) days], F2F [7(4-14) to 5(3-13) days] or control wards [5(3-9) to 5(3-7) days]. GDD improved only in the online ward 4.7(2.7-7.0) to 6.0(2.3-7.0) days; p = 0.038. Total patients with hypoglycaemia and appropriately treated hypoglycaemia increased in the online ward.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of online education increased diabetes training uptake among nursing staff. GDD and appropriate hypoglycaemia management increased in the online education wards.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered on the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 24/05/2017: ACTRN12617000762358 .

Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in High Risk Hospitalized Non-critically ill Patients with Diabetes after Cardiac Surgery and during their Transition of Care from the Intensive Care Unit during Covid-19-A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated benefits in managing inpatient diabetes. We initiated this single-arm pilot feasibility study during the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 patients to determine the feasibility and accuracy of real-time CGM in cardiac surgery patients with diabetes after their transition of care from the intensive care unit(ICU).

METHODS

Clarke Error Grid(CEG) analysis was used to compare CGM and point-of-care(POC) measurements. Mean absolute relative difference(MARD) of the paired measurements was calculated to assess the accuracy of the CGM for glucose measurements during the first 24 hours on CGM, the remainder of time on the CGM as well as for different chronic kidney disease(CKD) strata.

RESULTS

Overall MARD between POC and CGM measurements was 14.80%. MARD for patients without CKD IV and V with eGFR < 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 12.13%. Overall, 97% of the CGM values were within the no-risk zone of the CEG analysis. For the first 24 hours, a sensitivity analysis of the overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 15.42% (+/- 14.44) and 12.80% (+/- 7.85) respectively. Beyond the first 24 hours, overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 14.54% (+/- 13.21) and 11.86% (+/- 7.64) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CGM has great promise to optimize inpatient diabetes management in the noncritical care setting and after the transition of care from the ICU with high clinical reliability, and accuracy. More studies are needed to further assess CGM in patients with advanced CKD.

SGLT2 Inhibition Increases Fasting Glucagon but Does Not Restore the Counterregulatory Hormone Response to Hypoglycemia in Participants With Type 1 Diabetes

Individuals with type 1 diabetes have an impaired glucagon counterregulatory response to hypoglycemia. Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors increase glucagon concentrations. We evaluated whether SGLT inhibition restores the glucagon counterregulatory hormone response to hypoglycemia. Adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 22) were treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (5 mg daily) or placebo for 4 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. After each treatment phase, participants underwent a hyperinsulinemic-hypoglycemic clamp. Basal glucagon concentrations were 32% higher following dapagliflozin versus placebo, with a median within-participant difference of 2.75 pg/mL (95% CI 1.38-12.6). However, increased basal glucagon levels did not correlate with decreased rates of hypoglycemia and thus do not appear to be protective in avoiding hypoglycemia. During hypoglycemic clamp, SGLT2 inhibition did not change counterregulatory hormone concentrations, time to recovery from hypoglycemia, hypoglycemia symptoms, or cognitive function. Thus, despite raising basal glucagon concentrations, SGLT inhibitor treatment did not restore the impaired glucagon response to hypoglycemia. We propose that clinical reduction in hypoglycemia associated with these agents is a result of changes in diabetes care (e.g., lower insulin doses or improved glycemic variability) as opposed to a direct, physiologic effect of these medications on α-cell function.

Continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: an update in the era of COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are Food and Drug Administration approved devices for the ambulatory setting; however, they remain investigational systems for inpatient use. This review summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the use of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

CGM provides real-time glucose data that enable healthcare professionals to make proactive and timelier clinical decisions with regards to diabetes management. CGM devices appear to be safe and accurate systems for glucose monitoring in the hospital setting. Real-time CGM systems and glucose telemetry can decrease hypoglycemia and reduce hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes. Remote glucose monitoring decreases the need of frequent Point-of-care checks and personal protective equipment use while also mitigating staff exposure risk which is timely in the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although most nursing staff have limited exposure and training on CGM technology, early studies show that CGM use in the hospital is well received by nurses.

SUMMARY

Given the evidence in the current literature regarding CGM use in the hospital, CGM devices may be incorporated in the inpatient setting.

Largest Amplitude of Glycemic Excursion Calculating from Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Predicted the Episodes of Nocturnal Asymptomatic Hypoglycemia Detecting by Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Outpatients with Type 2 Diabetes

AIMS

Nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia (NAH) is a serious complication of diabetes, but it is difficult to be detected clinically. This study was conducted to determine the largest amplitude of glycemic excursion (LAGE) to predict the episodes of NAH in outpatients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 313 outpatients with type 2 diabetes. All subjects received continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for consecutive 72 hours. The episodes of NAH and glycemic variability indices (glucose standard deviation [SD], mean amplitude of plasma glucose excursion [MAGE], mean blood glucose [MBG]) were accessed via CGM. LAGE was calculated from self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG).

RESULTS

A total of 76 people (24.3%) had NAH. Compared to patients without NAH, patients with NAH showed higher levels of glucose SD (2.4 ± 0.9 mmol/L vs 1.7 ± 0.9 mmol/L, p <0.001), MAGE (5.2 ± 2.1 mmol/L vs 3.7 ± 2.0, p<0.001) and LAGE (4.6 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 3.8 ± 1.9 mmol/L, p=0.007), and lower level of MBG (7.5 ± 1.5 mmol/L vs 8.4 ± 2.2 mmol/L, p=0.002). LAGE was significantly associated with the incidence of NAH and time below rang (TBR) in model 1 [NAH: 1.189 (1.027-1.378), p=0.021; TBR: 0.008 (0.002-0.014), p=0.013] with adjustment for age, BMI, sex, work, hyperlipidemia, complication and medication, and in model 2 [NAH: 1.177 (1.013-1.367), p=0.033; TBR: 0.008 (0.002-0.014), p=0.012] after adjusting for diabetes duration based on model 1, as well as in model 3 [NAH: 1.244 (1.057-1.464), p=0.009; TBR: 0.009 (0.002-0.016), p=0.007] with further adjustment for HbA1c based on model 2. In addition, no significant interactions were found between LAGE and sex, age, HbA1c, duration of diabetes, BMI and insulin therapy on the risk of NAH. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve shows the ideal cutoff value of LAGE for the prediction of NAH was 3.48 mmol/L with 66.7% sensitivity, 50% specificity and 0.587 (95% CI: 0.509-0.665) of area under the ROC curve.

CONCLUSIONS

High glycemic variability is strongly associated with the risk of NAH. The LAGE based on SMBG could be an independent predictor of NAH for outpatients with type 2 diabetes, and LAGE greater than 3.48 mmol/L could act as a warning alarm for high risk of NAH in daily life.

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine.

CONCLUSION

Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.

Novel Glycemic Index Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Predict Poor Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Study

AIM

We explored the prospective relationship between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and clinical outcomes in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled critically ill patients admitted to the medical ICU. Patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score ≤9 or ICU stay ≤48 h were excluded. CGM was performed for five days, and standardized CGM metrics were analyzed. The duration of ICU stay and 28-day mortality rate were evaluated as outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were included in this study (age [range], 49-88 years; men, 55.6%). The average APACHE score was 25.4 ± 8.3; 33 (91.7%) patients required ventilator support, and 16 (44.4%) patients had diabetes. The duration of ICU stay showed a positive correlation with the average blood glucose level, glucose management indicator (GMI), time above range, and GMI minus (-) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Eight (22.2%) patients died within 28 days, and their average blood glucose levels, GMI, and GMI-HbA1c were significantly higher than those of survivors (p<0.05). After adjustments for age, sex, presence of diabetes, APACHE score, and dose of steroid administered, the GMI-HbA1c was associated with the risk of longer ICU stay (coefficient=2.34, 95% CI 0.54-4.14, p=0.017) and higher 28-day mortality rate (HR=2.42, 95% CI 1.01-5.76, p=0.046).

CONCLUSION

The acute glycemic gap, assessed as GMI-HbA1c, is an independent risk factor for longer ICU stay and 28-day mortality rate. In the ICU setting, CGM of critically ill patients might be beneficial, irrespective of the presence of diabetes.

Switching from Insulin Degludec plus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor to Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Improves Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Preliminary Prospective Observation Study

Incretins reduce glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes, but it is unknown whether switching from a combination of basal insulin and a DPP-4 inhibitor to insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) improves GV. We performed an exploratory prospective observational study to compare the effect of IDegLira and the combination on GV. We recruited hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes who had stable glycemic control with insulin degludec (≤16 units/day) and taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. GV was analyzed using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before and after switching the medication to IDegLira. The principal endpoint was the change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). Other indices of GV and CGM parameters were analyzed as the secondary endpoints. Fifteen participants were enrolled and 12 completed the study. In these participants, the DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin degludec were discontinued, and the equivalent dose of IDegLira was commenced. Switching to IDegLira significantly improved MAGE from 74.9 (60.3, 97.7) mg/dL to 64.8 (52.0, 78.2) mg/dL (P < 0.05), as well as other indices of GV and 24-hour mean blood glucose concentration. Analysis of the ambulatory glucose profile showed marked reductions in postprandial glucose concentration. Nocturnal glucose concentration was similar under the two treatment regimens. IDegLira improved GV as well as the mean and the postprandial glucose concentration by switching from insulin degludec plus DPP-4 inhibitor combination. IDegLira might be beneficial for patients being treated with low-dose basal insulin.

Usefulness of CGM-Derived Metric, the Glucose Management Indicator, to Assess Glycemic Control in Non-White Individuals With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between the glucose management indicator (GMI) and HbA_1c in non-White individuals with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring metrics in individuals with diabetes divided by race into non-White and White cohorts.

RESULTS

We evaluated 316 individuals (non-White n = 68; White n = 248). Although GMI was not different (7.6 vs. 7.7; P = not significant) between the cohorts, HbA_1c was higher in the non-White cohort (8.7% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.004). HbA_1c higher than GMI by ≥0.5% was more frequently observed in the non-White cohort (90% vs. 75%; P = 0.02). In the non-White cohort only, duration of hypoglycemia was longer among those with HbA_1c higher than GMI by ≥0.5% compared with those with HbA_1c and GMI within 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

A differential relationship between HbA_1c and GMI in non-White versus White individuals with diabetes was observed. In non-White individuals, a greater difference between HbA_1c and GMI was associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the glucokinase activator PB-201 and its effects on the glucose excursion profile in drug-naïve Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled, crossover, single-centre phase 1 trial

BACKGROUND

PB-201, a partial, pancreas/liver-dual glucokinase activator, showed good tolerance and glycaemic effects in multinational studies. This study determined its optimal dose, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, four-period, crossover, phase 1 trial in China, conducted at the Peking University Third Hospital, adult patients with drug-naive type 2 diabetes were randomised (1:1:1:1) to four sequence groups using a computer-generated randomisation table. In each period, they received oral placebo or PB-201 (50+50, 100+50, or 100+100 mg split doses) for 7 days. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were safety and pharmacokinetics. Continuous glucose monitoring was used to delineate the glucose excursion profile. Trial registration number: NCT03973515.

FINDINGS

Between August 27, 2019 and December 19, 2019, 16 patients were randomised. PB-201 showed a dose-proportional pharmacokinetic profile without apparent accumulation in the body and induced dose-dependent lowering of blood glucose. PB-201 at 50+50, 100+50, and 100+100 mg increased mean time in range (49·210% [standard deviation 27], 56·130% [25], and 63·330% [20] with three doses, respectively) versus placebo (49·380% [27]) and reduced estimated glycated haemoglobin from baseline (-0·5445% [1·654], -1·063% [1·236], and -1·888% [1·381] vs -0·581% [1·200]). Fifteen patients (93·8%) had treatment-emergent adverse events, which were mild. No patients had hypoglycaemia with venous/capillary glucose <3·9 mmol/L or nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

INTERPRETATION

PB-201 100 mg twice daily is identified as the optimal dose, which shows promising glucose-lowering effects and low risks of hypoglycaemia and other side effects. Further investigation of PB-201 100 mg twice daily in confirmatory trials is warranted.

FUNDING

PegBio.

COVID-19 and Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most common comorbid conditions in persons with COVID-19 and a risk factor for poor prognosis. The reasons why COVID-19 is more severe in persons with DM are currently unknown although the scarce data available on patients with DM hospitalized because of COVID-19 show that glycemic control is inadequate. The fact that patients with COVID-19 are usually cared for by health professionals with limited experience in the management of diabetes and the need to prevent exposure to the virus may also be obstacles to glycemic control in patients with COVID-19. Effective clinical care should consider various aspects, including screening for the disease in at-risk persons, education, and monitoring of control and complications. We examine the effect of COVID-19 on DM in terms of glycemic control and the restrictions arising from the pandemic and assess management of diabetes and drug therapy in various scenarios, taking into account factors such as physical exercise, diet, blood glucose monitoring, and pharmacological treatment. Specific attention is given to patients who have been admitted to hospital and critically ill patients. Finally, we consider the role of telemedicine in the management of DM patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic and in the future.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on time in range: SWITCH PRO, a crossover study of basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for hypoglycaemia

AIMS

To compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels.

RESULTS

At baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Degludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.

Reliability of continuous glucose monitoring system in the inpatient setting

Aims/Hypothesis

Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the inpatient setting. Standard point of care capillary glucose testing (POCT) is commonly used in hospitalized patients to monitor their glucose levels. The goal of this study was to examine the relationships between the glucose readings obtained by a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) (Freestyle Libre) and the capillary blood glucose results obtained by the inpatient glucose POCT meter (Accuchek Inform II) as well as between CGMS readings and the serum glucose values obtained by the hospital laboratory. Study participants had either primary or secondary diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and were admitted to non-critical units. We hypothesized that there exists an acceptable agreement between the capillary blood glucose results obtained by the inpatient glucose POCT meter (Accuchek Inform II) and the readings obtained by the CGMS (Freestyle Libre); and that there exists an acceptable agreement between the serum glucose levels and the glucose values obtained by the CGMS.

Methods

This was an Institutional Review Board approved prospective cohort study for the non– critical inpatient setting. Fifty-two hospitalized patients with diabetes were recruited. After informed consent was obtained, patients were instructed on the application and use of the CGMS. The data were assessed using a standard regression analysis and modified Bland Altman analysis. All analyses were conducted using SAS, release 3.8 Enterprise Edition (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Fifty-two subjects recruited into the study represented a sample of convenience. There were a total of 467 AccuChek-Libre pairs, The regression analysis showed a negative bias between.

Libre and AccuChek, R² = 0.83, with Libre glucose readings on average being lower than those of AccuChek. Using Bland-Altman analysis, 42% of the 467 Libre-AccuChek pairs had a difference in glucose reading more than 15%. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between Libre and AccuChek was 15.6%; mean relative difference (MRD) between Libre and AccuChek was −11.4%.

The regression analysis showed a negative bias between Libre and serum glucose, R² = 0.89. Using Bland Altman analysis, 36% of the 44 Libre-serum pairs had a difference in glucose reading more than 15%. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between Libre and serum glucose was 13.2%; mean relative difference (MRD) between Libre and serum glucose was −12.5%.

A review of the data pairs showed that 71/467 Accuchek-Libre pairs had one result that was either below 70 mg/dl or above 200 mg/dl (combined American Diabetes Association-ADA-, American College of Physicians-ACP- and American College of Endocrinology-AACE- goals). Thus 85%, of these pairs would have yielded results that engendered the same intervention (e.g. treatment for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia). Likewise 5/45 Serum-Libre pairs had one result that was either below 70 mg/dl or above 200 mg/dl; thus 89% of these pairs would have yielded results requiring the same intervention.

Conclusion/Interpretation

These findings confirm the existent literature and indicate acceptable agreement between the standard POCT and the CGMS as well as between serum glucose and the CGMS values. Because of the advantages of the CGMS over capillary blood glucose testing (reduced patient discomfort and reduced staff exposure to patients in isolation) CGMS use may be preferable to the current bedside capillary blood glucose testing in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus. As with other laboratory measures, clinical judgement needs to be exercised when the laboratory values are used to guide patient care.

Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have transformed ambulatory diabetes management. Until recently, inpatient use of CGM has remained investigational, with limited data on its accuracy in the hospital setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To analyze the accuracy of Dexcom G6, we compared retrospective matched-pair CGM and capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose data from three inpatient CGM studies (two interventional and one observational) in general medicine and surgery patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD), median absolute relative difference (ARD), and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of POC reference values for blood glucose >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 218 patients were included (96% with type 2 diabetes) with a mean age of 60.6 ± 12 years. The overall MARD (n = 4,067 matched glucose pairs) was 12.8%, and median ARD was 10.1% (interquartile range 4.6, 17.6]. The proportions of readings meeting % 15/15, % 20/20, and % 30/30 criteria were 68.7, 81.7, and 93.8%, respectively. CEG analysis showed 98.7% of all values in zones A and B. MARD and median ARD were higher in the case of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and severe anemia (hemoglobin <7 g/dL).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that CGM technology is a reliable tool for hospital use and may help improve glucose monitoring in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Effect of Professional CGM (pCGM) on Glucose Management in Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Little data exists regarding the impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the primary care management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We initiated a quality improvement (QI) project in a large healthcare system to determine the effect of professional CGM (pCGM) on glucose management. We evaluated both an MD and RN/Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist (CDCES) Care Model.

METHODS

Participants with T2D for >1 yr., A1C ≥7.0% to <11.0%, managed with any T2D regimen and willing to use pCGM were included. Baseline A1C was collected and participants wore a pCGM (Libre Pro) for up to 2 weeks, followed by a visit with an MD or RN/CDCES to review CGM data including Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Report. Shared-decision making was used to modify lifestyle and medications. Clinic follow-up in 3 to 6 months included an A1C and, in a subset, a repeat pCGM.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight participants average age 61.6 years, average duration of T2D 15 years, mean A1C 8.8%, were identified. Pre to post pCGM lowered A1C from 8.8% ± 1.2% to 8.2% ± 1.3% (n=68, P=0.006). The time in range (TIR) and time in hyperglycemia improved along with more hypoglycemia in the subset of 37 participants who wore a second pCGM. Glycemic improvement was due to lifestyle counseling (68% of participants) and intensification of therapy (65% of participants), rather than addition of medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Using pCGM in primary care, with an MD or RN/CDCES Care Model, is effective at lowering A1C, increasing TIR and reducing time in hyperglycemia without necessarily requiring additional medications.

Associations between continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics and diabetic retinopathy and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Preventing the development and progression of diabetic microvascular complications through optimal blood glucose control remains an important challenge. Whether metrics based on continuous glucose monitoring are useful for the management of diabetic microvascular complications is not entirely clear.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is an exploratory analysis of an ongoing prospective, multicenter, 5-year follow-up observational study. Study participants included 999 outpatients with type 2 diabetes who underwent continuous glucose monitoring at baseline. Associations between continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics and the severity of diabetic retinopathy or albuminuria were investigated using multivariable proportional odds models.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of diabetic retinopathy was 22.2%. Multivariate analysis with proportional odds models demonstrated that continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics related to intraday and interday glucose variability are significantly associated with the severity of diabetic retinopathy, even after adjusting for various possible risk factors. However, significant relationships were not observed after adjusting for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. The prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria was 20.3% and 6.7%, respectively. Similarly, multivariate analysis demonstrated that those metrics are significantly associated with the severity of albuminuria. These relationships remained significant even after further adjusting for HbA1c levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics related to intraday and interday glucose variability are significantly associated with the severity of diabetic retinopathy or albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. Thus, evaluating these metrics might possibly be useful for risk assessment of diabetic microvascular complications.Trial registration number UMIN000032325.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have suddenly become part of routine care in many hospitals. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated the use of new technologies and new processes to care for hospitalized patients, including diabetes patients. The use of CGMs to automatically and remotely supplement or replace assisted monitoring of blood glucose by bedside nurses can decrease: the amount of necessary nursing exposure to COVID-19 patients with diabetes; the amount of time required for obtaining blood glucose measurements, and the amount of personal protective equipment necessary for interacting with patients during the blood glucose testing. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now exercising enforcement discretion and not objecting to certain factory-calibrated CGMs being used in a hospital setting, both to facilitate patient care and to obtain performance data that can be used for future regulatory submissions. CGMs can be used in the hospital to decrease the frequency of fingerstick point of care capillary blood glucose testing, decrease hyperglycemic episodes, and decrease hypoglycemic episodes. Most of the research on CGMs in the hospital has focused on their accuracy and only recently outcomes data has been reported. A hospital CGM program requires cooperation of physicians, bedside nurses, diabetes educators, and hospital administrators to appropriately select and manage patients. Processes for collecting, reviewing, storing, and responding to CGM data must be established for such a program to be successful. CGM technology is advancing and we expect that CGMs will be increasingly used in the hospital for patients with diabetes.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) in critically ill hospitalized patients holds promise; however, real-world data are needed.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We placed Dexcom G6 CGM on intensive care unit (ICU) patients at Montefiore Medical Center with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and glycemic variability. We analyzed inpatient CGM accuracy using point-of-care (POC) glucose-CGM matched pairs and included patients for analysis regardless of clinical status.

RESULTS

We included 11 patients with CGM: 8 on continuous insulin infusion (CII), 8 on vasopressors, 8 intubated, 4 on high-dose glucocorticoids, 6 on renal replacement therapy, and 2 with anasarca. Accuracy was 12.58% for mean and 6.3% for median absolute relative difference. CGM reduced POC testing by ∼60% for patients on CII.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world preliminary analysis of rtCGM during critical illness, we demonstrate early feasibility, considerable accuracy, and meaningful reduction in the frequency of POC glucose testing.

Facilitators and Barriers to Nursing Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

We describe our implementation of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) guideline to support intravenous insulin administration and reduce point of care (POC) glucose monitoring frequency in the coronavirus disease 2019 medical intensive care unit (MICU) and evaluate nurses' experience with implementation of CGM and hybrid POC + CGM protocol using the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services framework.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team created a guideline providing criteria for establishing initial sensor-meter agreement within each individual patient followed by hybrid use of CGM and POC. POC measures were obtained hourly during initial validation, then every 6 hours. We conducted a focus group among MICU nurses to evaluate initial implementation efforts with content areas focused on initial assessment of evidence, context, and facilitation to identify barriers and facilitators. The focus group was analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The protocol was integrated through a rapid cycle review process and ultimately disseminated nationally. The Diabetes Consult Service performed device set-up and nurses received just-in-time training. The majority of barriers centered on contextual factors, including limitations of the physical environment, complex device set-up, hospital firewalls, need for training, and CGM documentation. Nurses' perceived device accuracy and utility were exceptionally high. Solutions were devised to maximize facilitation and sustainability for nurses while maintaining patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient CGM systems can be implemented in the MICU using a hybrid protocol implementation science approach. These efforts hold tremendous potential to reduce healthcare worker exposure while maintaining glucose control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continuous glucose monitoring: The achievement of 100 years of innovation in diabetes technology

Monitoring of glucose levels is essential to effective diabetes management. Over the past 100 years, there have been numerous innovations in glucose monitoring methods. The most recent advances have centered on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies. Numerous studies have demonstrated that use of continuous glucose monitoring confers significant glycemic benefits on individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Ongoing improvements in accuracy and convenience of CGM devices have prompted increasing adoption of this technology. The development of standardized metrics for assessing CGM data has greatly improved and streamlined analysis and interpretation, enabling clinicians and patients to make more informed therapy modifications. However, many clinicians many be unfamiliar with current CGM and how use of these devices may help individuals with T1DM and T2DM achieve their glycemic targets. The purpose of this review is to present an overview of current CGM systems and provide guidance to clinicians for initiating and utilizing CGM in their practice settings.

Glycopenia - induced sympathoadrenal activation in diabetes mellitus and uncontrolled arterial hypertension: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Aim of this study is to investigate a possible association of hypoglycemic episodes and arterial hypertension. We hypothesize that hospitalized insulin-treated diabetes patients with hypertensive crisis have more hypoglycemic episodes than their counterparts without hypertensive crisis on admission.

METHODS

In a prospective, observational cohort study, 65 insulin-treated diabetes patients (type 1, type 2, type 3c) were included in Group 1, when a hypertensive crisis was present, as control patients in Group 2 without hypertensive crisis or hypoglycemia, in Group 3, when a symptomatic hypoglycemia was present on admission. All patients were subjected to open-label continuous glucose monitoring, 24-h blood-pressure- and Holter electrocardiogram recordings, and to laboratory tests including plasma catecholamines.

RESULTS

53 patients, thereof 19 Group-1, 19 Group-2, 15 Group-3 patients, completed this study. Group-1 patients had the highest maximum systolic blood pressure, a higher daily cumulative insulin dose at admission, a higher body-mass index, and a higher plasma norepinephrine than control patients of Group 2. Group-3 patients had more documented hypoglycemic episodes (0.8 ± 0.5 per 24 h) than Group-2 patients (0.2 ± 0.3 per 24 h), however, they were not different to the ones in Group-1 patients (0.4 ± 0.4 per 24 h). Plasma norepinephrine and mean arterial blood pressure were higher Group-1 and Group-3 patients than in control patients of Group 2. At discharge, the daily cumulative insulin dose was reduced in Group-1 (- 18.4 ± 24.9 units) and in Group-3 patients (- 18.6 ± 22.7 units), but remained unchanged in Group-2 control patients (- 2.9 ± 15.6 units).

CONCLUSIONS

An association between hypoglycemic events and uncontrolled hypertension was found in this study.

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Preparedness cycle to address transitions in diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic and future outbreaks

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered a mass casualty incident of the most severe nature leading to unearthed uncertainties around management, prevention, and care. As of July 2020, more than twelve million people have tested positive for COVID-19 globally and more than 500 000 people have died. Patients with diabetes are among the most severely affected during this pandemic. Healthcare systems have made emergent changes to adapt to this public health crisis, including changes in diabetes care. Adaptations in diabetes care in the hospital (ie, changes in treatment protocols according to clinical status, diabetes technology implementation) and outpatient setting (telemedicine, mail delivery, patient education, risk stratification, monitoring) have been improvised to address this challenge. We describe how to respond to the current public health crisis focused on diabetes care in the USA. We present strategies to address and evaluate transitions in diabetes care occurring in the immediate short-term (ie, response and mitigation), as well as phases to adapt and enhance diabetes care during the months and years to come while also preparing for future pandemics (ie, recovery, surveillance, and preparedness). Implementing multidimensional frameworks may help identify gaps in care, alleviate initial demands, mitigate potential harms, and improve implementation strategies and outcomes in the future.

Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: Emergent Considerations for Remote Glucose Monitoring During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become a widely used tool in the ambulatory setting for monitoring glucose levels, as well as detecting uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability. The accuracy of some CGM systems has recently improved to the point of manufacture with factory calibration and Food and Drug Administration clearance for nonadjunctive use to dose insulin. In this commentary, we analyze the answers to six questions about what is needed to bring CGM into the hospital as a reliable, safe, and effective tool. The evidence to date indicates that CGM offers promise as an effective tool for monitoring hospitalized patients. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 crisis, we hope to provide guidance to healthcare professionals, who are seeking to reduce exposure to SARS-Cov-2, as well as preserve invaluable personal protective equipment. In this commentary, we address who, what, where, when, why, and how CGM can be adopted for inpatient use.