Taking a Closer Look--Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Under Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) in adjusting insulin therapy in long-term care facilities (LTCF).

DESIGN

Prospective randomized clinical trial.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted to LTCF.

METHODS

Participants in the standard of care wore a blinded CGM with treatment adjusted based on point-of-care capillary glucose results before meals and bedtime (POC group). Participants in the intervention (CGM group) wore a Dexcom G6 CGM with treatment adjusted based on daily CGM profile. Treatment adjustment was performed by the LTCF medical team, with a duration of intervention up to 60 days. The primary endpoint was difference in time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Among 100 participants (age 74.73 ± 11 years, 80% admitted for subacute rehabilitation and 20% for nursing home care), there were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups, and CGM data were compared for a median of 17 days. There were no differences in TIR (53.38% ± 30.16% vs 48.81% ± 28.03%, P = .40), mean daily mean CGM glucose (184.10 ± 43.4 mg/dL vs 190.0 ± 45.82 mg/dL, P = .71), or the percentage of time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL (0.83% ± 2.59% vs 1.18% ± 3.54%, P = .51), or TBR <54 mg/dL (0.23% ± 0.85% vs 0.56% ± 2.24%, P = .88) between rt-CGM and POC groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The use of rtCGM is safe and effective in guiding insulin therapy in patients with T2D in LTCF resulting in a similar improvement in glycemic control compared to POC-guided insulin adjustment.

Feasibility and Performance of Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Guide Computerized Insulin Infusion Therapy in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the feasibility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for titrating continuous intravenous insulin infusion (CII) to manage hyperglycemia in postoperative individuals in the cardiovascular intensive care unit and assessed their accuracy, nursing acceptance, and postoperative individual satisfaction.

METHODS

Dexcom G6 CGM devices were applied to 59 postsurgical patients with hyperglycemia receiving CII. A hybrid approach combining CGM with periodic point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) tests with two phases (initial-ongoing) of validation was used to determine CGM accuracy. Mean and median absolute relative differences and Clarke Error Grid were plotted to evaluate the CGM accuracy. Surveys of nurses and patients on the use of CGMs experience were conducted and results were analyzed.

RESULTS

In this cohort (mean age 64, 32% female, 32% with diabetes) with 864 paired POC-BG and CGM values analyzed, mean and median absolute relative difference between POC-BG and CGM values were 13.2% and 9.8%, respectively. 99.7% of paired CGM and POC-BG were in Zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid. Responses from nurses reported CGMs being very or quite convenient (n = 28; 93%) and it was favored over POC-BG testing (n = 28; 93%). Majority of patients (n = 42; 93%) reported their care process using CGM as being good or very good.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility, accuracy, and nursing convenience of adopting CGM via a hybrid approach for insulin titration in postoperative settings. These findings provide robust rationale for larger confirmatory studies to evaluate the benefit of CGM in postoperative care to improve workflow, enhance health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

Accuracy and Potential Interferences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors in the Hospital

For years, the standard of care for monitoring dysglycemia in hospitalized patients was capillary blood glucose (CBG) testing with point-of-care glucose meters. Recently, there has been a revolution in novel factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Newer CGMs are smaller and less expensive, have improved accuracy and longer wear time, and do not require fingerstick CBG for calibration, resulting in increased utilization in ambulatory settings. Consequently, hospitals have noticed increased usability of CGMs among hospitalized patients and expect a progressive continued increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, with several pilot implementation projects using CGM in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit settings, further boosting the evidence in this area. Hence, recent guidelines have provided recommendations for the use of CGM in specific hospital scenarios and highlighted the potential of CGM to overcome CBG limitations for glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting. In this review, we provide the following: 1) an up-to-date review of the accuracy of the newer CGMs in hospitalized patients, 2) a discussion of standards for CGM accuracy metrics, 3) a contemporary overview of potential interferences that may cause inaccuracies or poor CGM performance, and 4) required steps for full regulatory approval of CGMs in the hospital and future research steps to advance the field forward.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a non-Icu hospital setting: The patient's journey

AIMS

Although consistent data support the outpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic burden, and clinical outcomes, there are limited data regarding its use in the hospital setting, particularly in the non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) setting. The emerging use of CGM in the non-critical care setting may be useful in increasing the efficiency of hospital care and reducing the length of stay for patients with diabetes while improving glycemic control.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The purpose of this Expert Opinion paper was to evaluate the state of the art and provide a practical model of how CGM can be implemented in the hospital.

SETTING

A patient's CGM journey from admission to the ward to the application of the sensor, from patient education on the device during hospitalization until discharge of the patient to maintain remote control.

CONCLUSIONS

This practical approach for the implementation and management of CGM in patients with diabetes admitted to non-ICUs could guide hospitals in their diabetes management initiatives using CGM, helping to identify patients most likely to benefit and suggesting how this technology can be implemented to maximize clinical benefits.

Adjustment of Maternal Variable Rate Insulin Infusions Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital holds promise; however, further evidence is required on its use to guide adjustment of variable rate intravenous insulin infusion (VRIII). We retrospectively analyzed data from 20 women with type 1 diabetes during the peripartum period who were commenced on VRIII. Data were analyzed for CGM accuracy (Dexcom G6) using point-of-care glucose-CGM matched pairs. The study was entirely observational, with no deviation from standard clinical care. Twenty women were included; median age 30 (26-35) years with first glycated hemoglobin in pregnancy of 57 (49-60) mmol/mol. Overall median absolute relative difference was 6.1 (1.6-17.3)%. The total simulated CGM-adjusted VRIII was 2.5 U per hour, compared with 2.4 U per hour with capillary blood glucose-adjusted VRIII. In this retrospective analysis of CGM adjustment of maternal VRIII, we demonstrate early feasibility and considerable accuracy. Further prospective studies are required to confirm the safety and potential efficacy of CGM-based insulin titration.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospital Settings for People With Diabetes: A Scoping Review of Emerging Benefits and Issues

BACKGROUND

Evidence indicates that poor glycemic control is associated with increased morbidity and length of stay in hospital. There are a wide range of guidelines published, which seek to ensure safe and effective inpatient glycemic control in the hospital setting. However, the implementation of these protocols is limited in practice. In particular, the feasibility of "flash" and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains untested on general wards.

METHOD

Scoping Review.

RESULTS

If used in the general ward hospital settings, CGM and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems could lead to improved glycemic control, decreased length of stay, and reduced risk of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Potential problems include lack of experience with this technology and costs of sensors. Rapid analysis of glucose measurements can facilitate clinical decision making and therapy adjustment in the hospital setting. In addition, people with diabetes may be empowered to better self-manage their condition in hospital as they have direct access to their glucose data.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are required in which the feasibility, benefits and limitations of FGM and CGM in non-intensive care unit hospital settings are elucidated. We need evidence on which types of hospital wards might benefit from the introduction of this technology and the contexts in which they are less useful. We also need to identify the types of people who are most likely to find FGM and CGM useful for self-management and for which populations they have the most benefit in terms of clinical outcomes and length of stay.

Reliability of Inpatient CGM: Comparison to Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

Optimal inpatient glycemic management targets a blood glucose (BG) of 140-180 mg/dL and is an important safety measure for hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. Traditional barriers to appropriate insulin administration include incorrect timing of prandial insulin administration, failure to administer basal insulin to persons with insulin deficiency/type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM), and inaccurate insulin dosing or timing resulting in hypoglycemia. Given the ongoing rapid assimilation of technology to manage our patients with DM, we investigated the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the inpatient setting as a potential solution to traditional barriers to optimal hyperglycemia management for inpatient care. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of use of inpatient CGM for insulin dosing in comparison with current standard of care and whether CGM could aid in minimizing hypoglycemic events.

METHODS

This study evaluated the use of Abbott professional (blinded) Freestyle Libre CGMs in participants treated with basal bolus insulin administered with subcutaneous insulin (basal bolus therapy [BBT]: n = 20) or on intravenous insulin (IVI) infusions (n =16) compared with standard point of care (POC) BG measurements. All participants on IVI were admitted with a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The CGM data was not available in real time. Sensors were removed at the time of discharge and data uploaded to Libre View. Continuous BG data were aggregated for each subject and matched to POC BG or lab chemistry values within five minutes. The POC BG results were assessed for comparability (CGM vs standard BG testing). Data were further analyzed for clinical decision-making for correction insulin.

RESULTS

The overall mean absolute relative difference including both IVI and BBT groups was 22.3% (SD, 9.0), with a median of 20.0%. By group, the IVI arm mean was 19.6% (SD, 9.4), with a median of 16.0%; for BBT, the arm mean was 24.6% (SD, 8.1), with a median 23.4%. Using the Wilcoxon two-sample test, the means were not different (P = .10), whereas the medians were (P = .015). The CGM consistently reported lower glucose values than POC BG in the majority of paired values (BBT arm mean difference = 44.8 mg/dL, IVI mean difference = 19.7 mg/dL). Glucose results were in agreement for the group 83% of the time with Bland-Altman Plot of Difference versus the mean of all glucometric data. Analysis of correction dose insulin using either CGM or POC BG values resulted in a negligible difference in calculated insulin dose recommended in those receiving subcutaneous insulin. Corrective doses were based on weight and insulin sensitivity (type 1 vs type 2 DM). Participants initially on IVI were included in a data set of BBT once IVI therapy ceased and basal bolus insulin regimen was started. The data of all basal bolus therapy participants with 1142 paired values of CGM versus POC glucose were used. The dosing difference was less for CGM than POC BG in the majority of paired values, and there was an absolute difference in dose of insulin of only 1.34 units. In the IVI group with 300 paired values of CGM versus POC glucose, there was an absolute difference in dose of insulin of only 0.74 units. About a third of the patients studied in the BBT arm experienced a hypoglycemic event with POC BG <70 mg/dL. If used in real time, CGM would have identified a hypoglycemic event for our patients on average 3 hours and 34 minutes before it was detected by standard POC BG. Two participants incurred severe nocturnal hypoglycemia during the study with POC BG <54 mg/dL with hypoglycemia detected on CGM up to 3 hours and 42 minutes before POC testing.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the use of inpatient CGM arrives at similar correction insulin dosing. The routine use of CGM for inpatients would consistently underestimate the BG compared with POC BG and could aid in minimizing and predicting hypoglycemia in the hospital setting. Our data support that the model of adoption of real-time inpatient CGM technology is anticipated to have significant impact in the clinical setting in efforts to maintain adequate glycemic control targeting BG 140-180 mg/dL while minimizing the frequency of hypoglycemic events.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the 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 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2023)]

This position statement presents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association for diabetes management of adult patients during inpatient stay. It is based on the current evidence with respect to blood glucose targets, insulin therapy and treatment with oral/injectable antidiabetic drugs during inpatient hospitalization. Additionally, special circumstances such as intravenous insulin therapy, concomitant therapy with glucocorticoids and use of diabetes technology during hospitalization are discussed.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Summary of Guidelines From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care

Increasing numbers of people, particularly with type 1 diabetes (T1D), are using wearable technologies. That is, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine both these elements. Given over a quarter of all people admitted to hospital have diabetes, there is a need for clinical guidelines for when people using them are admitted to hospital. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) provide a scoping review and summary of guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital.JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and use their own diabetes technology to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. Whilst people with diabetes are recommended to achieve a target of 70% time within range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]), this can be very difficult to achieve whilst unwell. We therefore recommend targeting hypoglycemia prevention as a priority, keeping time below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) at < 1%, being aware of looming hypoglycemia if glucose is between 4.0 and 5.9 mmol/L (72-106 mg/dL), and consider intervening, particularly if there is a downward CGM trend arrow.Health care organizations need clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using diabetes technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting. The current set of guidelines is divided into two parts. Part 1, which follows below, outlines the guidance for use of CGM in hospital. The second part outlines guidance for use of CSII and hybrid closed-loop in hospital.

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.

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.

Feasibility of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Telemetry System in an Inpatient Diabetes Unit: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization of persons with diabetes in an inpatient diabetes unit is challenging, notably for patients having different profiles. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the benefit of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) telemetry system to control glucose excursions in hospitalized patients with diabetes, according to their diabetes type and the reasons for their hospitalization.

METHOD

A prospective pilot study was conducted in 53 insulin-requiring diabetes patients hospitalized in the general ward. Glucose was monitored using Guardian Connect (GC, Medtronic) to adopt insulin therapy. The time in range (TIR, target 70-180 mg/dL), the time below range (TBR), and the time above range (TAR) were recorded by GC between the start of hospitalization (SH) and end of hospitalization (EH), and analyzed according to the diabetes type (type 1 diabetes n = 28, type 2 diabetes n = 25) and the reasons for hospitalization (acute complications n = 35, therapeutic education n = 18). Patient and caregiver satisfaction was also assessed.

RESULTS

In patients with type 2 diabetes and those hospitalized for acute complications, TIR significantly increased between the SH and EH, from 75.7% (95%CI 48.5-84.6) to 82.2% (95%CI 63.2-91.8) P = 0.043 and from 58.3% (95%CI 46.3-69.7) to 66.4% (95%CI 55.6-75.5) P = 0.031, respectively, and TAR significantly decreased, with no change in TBR. In patients with diabetes hospitalized for therapeutic education, TBR significantly decreased from 3.4% (95%CI 0-9.4) to 0% (95%CI 0-3.8) P = 0.037. Finally, 94% of patients and caregivers deemed the GC system useful.

CONCLUSIONS

CGM telemetry system use is feasible and well accepted in patients hospitalized in diabetes care unit and could be useful to improve therapeutic education and metabolic control, especially for specific homogenous populations with diabetes.

Update on the management of diabetes in long-term care facilities

The number of patients with diabetes is increasing among older adults in the USA, and it is expected to reach 26.7 million by 2050. In parallel, the percentage of older patients with diabetes in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) will also rise. Currently, the majority of LTCF residents are older adults and one-third of them have diabetes. Management of diabetes in LTCF is challenging due to multiple comorbidities and altered nutrition. Few randomized clinical trials have been conducted to determine optimal treatment for diabetes management in older adults in LTCF. The geriatric populations are at risk of hypoglycemia since the majority are treated with insulin and have different levels of functionality and nutritional needs. Effective approaches to avoid hypoglycemia should be implemented in these settings to improve outcome and reduce the economic burden. Newer medication classes might carry less risk of developing hypoglycemia along with the appropriate use of technology, such as the use of continuous glucose monitoring. Practical clinical guidelines for diabetes management including recommendations for prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia are needed to appropriately implement resources in the transition of care plans in this vulnerable population.

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.

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.

Electronic Diabetes Management System Replaces Paper Insulin Chart: Improved Quality in Diabetes Inpatient Care Processes Due to Digitalization

BACKGROUND

GlucoTab, an electronic diabetes management system (eDMS), supports healthcare professionals (HCPs) in inpatient blood glucose (BG) management at point-of-care and was implemented for the first time under routine conditions in a regional hospital to replace the paper insulin chart.

METHOD

To investigate quality of the eDMS for inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus a monocentric retrospective before-after evaluation was conducted. We compared documentation possibilities by assessing a blank paper chart vs the eDMS user interface. Further quality aspects were compared by assessing filled-in paper charts (n = 106) vs filled-in eDMS documentation (n = 241). HCPs (n = 59) were interviewed regarding eDMS satisfaction.

RESULTS

The eDMS represented an improvement of documentation possibilities by offering a more structured and comprehensive user interface compared to the blank paper chart. The number of good diabetes days averaged to a median value of four days in both groups (paper chart: 4.38 [0-7] vs eDMS: 4.38 [0-7] days). Median daily BG was 170 (117-297) mg/dL vs 168 (86-286) mg/dL and median fasting BG was 152 (95-285) mg/dL vs 145 (69-333) mg/dL, and 0.1% vs 0.4% BG values <54 mg/dL were documented. Diabetes documentation quality improved when using eDMS, for example, documentation of ordered BG measurement frequency (1% vs 100%) and ordered BG targets (0% vs 100%). HCPs stated that by using eDMS errors could be prevented (74%), and digital support of work processes was completed (77%). Time saving was noted by 8 out of 11 HCPs and estimated at 10-15 minutes per patient day by two HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The eDMS completely replaced the paper chart, showed comparable glycemic control, was positively accepted by HCPs, and is suitable for inpatient diabetes management.

Managing Patients with Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Hospital: to Wear or Not to Wear

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in the USA continues to rise, so does the popularity of diabetes management devices such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps. The use of this technology has been shown to improve outpatient glycemic outcomes and quality of life and oftentimes may be continued in the hospital setting. Our aim is to review the current guidelines and available evidence on the continuation of insulin pumps and CGMs in the inpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for hospitalizations and complications due to hyper- or hypoglycemia, metabolic co-morbidities, or as seen recently, more severe illness from infections such as SARS-CoV-2. The maintenance of euglycemia is important to decrease both morbidity and mortality in the hospital setting. There is consensus among experts and medical societies that inpatient use of diabetes technology in carefully selected patients with proper institutional protocols is safe and can improve inpatient glycemic outcomes and reduce hypoglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGMs played a vital role in managing hyperglycemia in some hospitalized patients. Insulin pumps and CGMs have the potential to transform glycemic management in hospitalized patients. In order for institutions to safely and effectively incorporate these technologies on their inpatient units, hospital-based providers will need to be able to understand how to manage and utilize these devices in their practice in conjunction with diabetes experts.

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

OBJECTIVE

We compared the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Pro continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and point-of-care capillary glucose testing (POC) among insulin-treated hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective study in adult patients with T2D admitted to general medicine and surgery wards. Patients were monitored with POC before meals and bedtime and with CGM during the hospital stay. Study end points included differences between POC and CGM in mean daily blood glucose (BG), hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dL, and nocturnal hypoglycemia. We also calculated the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), ±15%/15 mg/dL, ±20%/20 mg/dL, and ±30%/30 mg/dL and error grid analysis between matched glucose pairs.

RESULTS

Mean daily glucose was significantly higher by POC (188.9 ± 37.3 vs. 176.1 ± 46.9 mg/dL) with an estimated mean difference of 12.8 mg/dL (95% CI 8.3-17.2 mg/dL), and proportions of patients with glucose readings <70 mg/dL (14% vs. 56%) and <54 mg/dL (4.1% vs. 36%) detected by POC BG were significantly lower compared with CGM (all P < 0.001). Nocturnal and prolonged CGM hypoglycemia <54 mg/dL were 26% and 12%, respectively. The overall MARD was 14.8%, ranging between 11.4% and 16.7% for glucose values between 70 and 250 mg/dL and higher for 51-69 mg/dL (MARD 28.0%). The percentages of glucose readings within ±15%/15 mg/dL, ±20%/20 mg/dL, and ±30%/30 mg/dL were 62%, 76%, and 91%, respectively. Error grid analysis showed 98.8% of glucose pairs within zones A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with POC, FreeStyle Libre CGM showed lower mean daily glucose and higher detection of hypoglycemic events, particularly nocturnal and prolonged hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with T2D. CGM's accuracy was lower in the hypoglycemic range.

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.

Reducing Inpatient Hypoglycemia in the General Wards Using Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring: The Glucose Telemetry System, a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) systems in the inpatient setting is considered investigational. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether RT-CGM, using the glucose telemetry system (GTS), can prevent hypoglycemia in the general wards.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a randomized clinical trial, insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia were recruited. Participants were randomized to RT-CGM/GTS or point-of-care (POC) blood glucose testing. The primary outcome was difference in inpatient hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Seventy-two participants were included in this interim analysis, 36 in the RT-CGM/GTS group and 36 in the POC group. The RT-CGM/GTS group experienced fewer hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) per patient (0.67 [95% CI 0.34-1.30] vs. 1.69 [1.11-2.58], P = 0.024), fewer clinically significant hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) per patient (0.08 [0.03-0.26] vs. 0.75 [0.51-1.09], P = 0.003), and a lower percentage of time spent below range <70 mg/dL (0.40% [0.18-0.92%] vs. 1.88% [1.26-2.81%], P = 0.002) and <54 mg/dL (0.05% [0.01-0.43%] vs. 0.82% [0.47-1.43%], P = 0.017) compared with the POC group. No differences in nocturnal hypoglycemia, time in range 70-180 mg/dL, and time above range >180-250 mg/dL and >250 mg/dL were found between the groups. The RT-CGM/GTS group had no prolonged hypoglycemia compared with 0.20 episodes <54 mg/dL and 0.40 episodes <70 mg/dL per patient in the POC group.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-CGM/GTS can decrease hypoglycemia among hospitalized high-risk insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.

Hypoglycemia Incidence and Factors Associated in a Cohort of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Hospitalized in General Ward Treated With Basal Bolus Insulin Regimen Assessed by Continuous Glucose Monitoring

INTRODUCTION

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a better tool to detect hyper and hypoglycemia than capillary point of care in insulin-treated patients during hospitalization. We evaluated the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal bolus insulin regimen using CGM and factors associated with hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study. Hypoglycemia was documented in terms of incidence rate and percentage of time <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) and <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). Factors evaluated included glycemic variability analyzed during the first 6 days of basal bolus therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 34 hospitalized patients with T2D in general ward were included, with admission A1c of 9.26 ± 2.62% (76.8 ± 13 mmol/mol) and mean blood glucose of 254 ± 153 mg/dL. There were two events of hypoglycemia below 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) and 11 events below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) with an incidence of hypoglycemic events of 0.059 and 0.323 per patient, respectively. From second to fifth day of treatment the percentage of time in range (140-180 mg/dL, 7.8-10.0 mmol/L) increased from 72.1% to 89.4%. Factors related to hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) were admission mean glucose (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79, 0.95, P < .01), glycemic variability measured as CV (IRR 3.12, 95% CI 1.33, 7.61, P < .01) and SD, and duration of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Basal bolus insulin regimen is effective and the overall incidence of hypoglycemia detected by CGM is low in hospitalized patients with T2D. Increased glycemic variability as well as the decrease in mean glucose were associated with events <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L).

Diabetes Technology in the Inpatient Setting for Management of Hyperglycemia

In past decades, a rapid evolution of diabetes technology led to increased popularity and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in the ambulatory setting for diabetes management, and recently, the artificial pancreas became available. Efforts to translate this technology to the hospital setting have shown accuracy and reliability of CGM, safety of CSII in appropriate populations, improvement of inpatient glycemic control with computerized glycemic management systems, and feasibility of inpatient CGM-CSII closed-loop systems. Several ongoing studies are focusing on continued translation of this technology to improve glycemic control and outcomes in hospitalized patients.

Advancing the Use of CGM Devices in a Non-ICU Setting

Improvements in glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Among hospitalized patients the use of CGM is largely investigational, particularly in the non-ICU setting. Although there is no commercially available closed-loop system, it has recently been evaluated in the non-critical care setting. Both CGMs and closed-loop systems may lead to improved glycemic control, decreased length of stay, reduced risk of adverse events related to severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Limitations of inpatient use of CGM and closed-loop systems include lack of FDA approvals, inexperience with this technology, and costs related to supplies. Significant investment may be necessary for hospital staff training and for development of infrastructure to support inpatient use. Additional limitations for CGM systems includes potential inaccuracy of interstitial glucose measurements due to medication interferences, sensor lag, or sensor drift. Limitations for closed-loop systems also includes need for routine monitoring to detect infusion site issues as well as monitoring to ensure adequate insulin supply in reservoir to avoid abrupt cessation of insulin infusion leading to severe hyperglycemia. Hospital staff must be familiar with trouble-shooting and conversion to alternative mode of insulin delivery in the event of insulin pump malfunction. Given these complexities, implementation of closed-loop systems may require involvement of an endocrinology team, limiting widespread adoption. This article reviews current state of CGM and closed-loop system use in the non-ICU setting, available literature, advantages and limitations, as well as suggestions for future CGM design, specifically for the inpatient setting.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2019)]

This position statement presents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association for diabetes management of adult patients during inpatient stay. It is based on the current evidence with respect to blood glucose targets, insulin therapy and treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs during inpatient hospitalization. Additionally, special circumstances such as intravenous insulin therapy, concomitant therapy with glucocorticoids and use of diabetes technology during hospitalization are discussed.

GlucoTab-guided insulin therapy using insulin glargine U300 enables glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open, non-controlled single-arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal-bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m² ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab-suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

Designing the Glucose Telemetry for Hospital Management: From Bedside to the Nursing Station

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Hospitalized patients with diabetes are monitored with point-of-care glucose testing. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices represent an alternative way to monitor glucose values; however, the in-hospital CGM use is still considered experimental. Most inpatient studies used "blinded" CGM properties and only few used the real-time/unblinded CGM features. One major limitation of the CGM devices is that they need to be placed at the patients' bedside, limiting any therapeutic interventions. In this article, we review the real-time/unblinded CGM use and share our thoughts about the development of future inpatient CGM systems.

RECENT FINDINGS

We recently reported that glucose values can be wirelessly transmitted to the nursing station, providing remote continuous glucose monitoring. Future inpatient CGM devices may be utilized for patients at risk for hypoglycemia similarly to the way that we use cardiac telemetry to monitor hospitalized patients who are at increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias.

Diabetes Technology Update: Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital

The use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has gained wide acceptance in diabetes care. These devices have been demonstrated to be clinically valuable, improving glycemic control and reducing risks of hypoglycemia in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Approximately 30-40% of patients with type 1 diabetes and an increasing number of insulin-requiring patients with type 2 diabetes are using pump and sensor technology. As the popularity of these devices increases, it becomes very likely that hospital health care providers will face the need to manage the inpatient care of patients under insulin pump therapy and CGM. The American Diabetes Association advocates allowing patients who are physically and mentally able to continue to use their pumps when hospitalized. Health care institutions must have clear policies and procedures to allow the patient to continue to receive CSII treatment to maximize safety and to comply with existing regulations related to self-management of medication. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether CSII therapy and CGM systems in the hospital are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with intermittent monitoring and conventional insulin treatment or with a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

Bridging technology and clinical practice: innovating inpatient hyperglycaemia management in non-critical care settings

Emerging evidence shows that suboptimal glycaemic control is associated with increased morbidity and length of stay in hospital. Various guidelines for safe and effective inpatient glycaemic control in the non-critical care setting have been published. In spite of this, implementation in practice remains limited because of the increasing number of people with diabetes admitted to hospital and staff work burden. The use of technology in the outpatient setting has led to improved glycaemic outcomes and quality of life for people with diabetes. There remains an unmet need for technology utilisation in inpatient hyperglycaemia management in the non-critical care setting. Novel technologies have the potential to provide benefits in diabetes care in hospital by improving efficacy, safety and efficiency. Rapid analysis of glucose measurements by point-of-care devices help facilitate clinical decision-making and therapy adjustment in the hospital setting. Glucose treatment data integration with computerized glucose management systems underpins the effective use of decision support systems and may streamline clinical staff workflow. Continuous glucose monitoring and automation of insulin delivery through closed-loop systems may provide a safe and efficacious tool for hospital staff to manage inpatient hyperglycaemia whilst reducing staff workload. This review summarizes the evidence with regard to technological methods to manage inpatient glycaemic control, their limitations and the future outlook, as well as potential strategies by healthcare organizations such as the National Health Service to mediate the adoption, procurement and use of diabetes technologies in the hospital setting.

Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups.

RESULTS

Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.

The Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Preventing Inpatient Hypoglycemia in General Wards: The Glucose Telemetry System

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in the general wards. The aim of this pilot study was to examine whether CGM readings can be successfully transmitted from the bedside to a central monitoring device in the nursing station, and whether a glucose telemetry system can prevent hypoglycemic events.

METHODS

We present pilot data on 5 consecutive insulin treated general medicine patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) whose glucose values were observed with CGM (DEXCOM) and the results were transmitted to a central nursing station monitoring system using DEXCOM Follow and Share 2 software. CGM alarms were set-up at glucose <85 mg/dl.

RESULTS

Duration of CGM observation was 4.0 ± 1.6 days (mean ± SD). During CGM, the overall time spent within blood glucose (BG) target of 70-179 mg/dl was 64.68 ± 15% (mean ± SD), on hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) was 0.30% ± 0.39, and time spent on hyperglycemia (≥180 mg/dl) was 35.02% ± 15.5. Two patients had 3 actions of prevention of potential hypoglycemia (CGM BG <70 mg/dl for >20 minutes) captured by alarm. No patients had CGM glucose value <54 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study indicates that the use of CGM values in hospitalized patients can be successfully transmitted to a monitoring device in the nursing station, improving patient surveillance in insulin treated patients with diabetes.

Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Glycemic Outcomes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is commonly used in the outpatient setting to improve diabetes management. CGM can provide real-time glucose trends, detecting hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia before the onset of clinical symptoms. In 2011, at the time the Endocrine Society CGM guidelines were published, the society did not recommend inpatient CGM as its efficacy and safety were unknown. While many studies have subsequently evaluated inpatient CGM accuracy and reliability, glycemic outcome studies have not been widely published. In the non-ICU setting, investigational CGM studies have commonly blinded providers and patients to glucose data. Retrospective review of the glucose data reflects increased hypoglycemia detection with CGM. In the ICU setting, data are inconsistent whether CGM can improve glycemic outcomes. Studies have not focused on hospitalized patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the population most likely to benefit from inpatient CGM. This article reviews inpatient CGM glycemic outcomes in the non-ICU and ICU setting.

Standardized Glycemic Management with a Computerized Workflow and Decision Support System for Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Different Wards

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and usability of standardized glycemic management by a computerized decision support system for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes on four different wards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open, noncontrolled intervention study, glycemic management of 99 patients with type 2 diabetes (62% acute admissions; 41 females; age, 67±11 years; hemoglobin A1c, 65±21 mmol/mol; body mass index, 30.4±6.5 kg/m(2)) on clinical wards (Cardiology, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Plastic Surgery) of a tertiary-care hospital was guided by GlucoTab(®) (Joanneum Research GmbH [Graz, Austria] and Medical University of Graz [Graz, Austria]), a mobile decision support system providing automated workflow support and suggestions for insulin dosing to nurses and physicians.

RESULTS

Adherence to insulin dosing suggestions was high (96.5% bolus, 96.7% basal). The primary outcome measure, percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in the range of 70-140 mg/dL, occurred in 50.2±22.2% of all measurements. The overall mean BG level was 154±35 mg/dL. BG measurements in the ranges of 60-70 mg/dL, 40-60 mg/dL, and <40 mg/dL occurred in 1.4%, 0.5%, and 0.0% of all measurements, respectively. A regression analysis showed that acute admission to the Cardiology Ward (+30 mg/dL) and preexisting home insulin therapy (+26 mg/dL) had the strongest impact on mean BG. Acute admission to other wards had minor effects (+4 mg/dL). Ninety-one percent of the healthcare professionals felt confident with GlucoTab, and 89% believed in its practicality and 80% in its ability to prevent medication errors.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficacious, safe, and user-accepted implementation of GlucoTab was demonstrated. However, for optimized personalized patient care, further algorithm modifications are required.