Critical discrepancy in blood glucose control levels evaluated by glycated albumin and estimated hemoglobin A1c levels determined from a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in patients with type 2 diabetes on hemodialysis

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.

Accuracy of Flash Glucose Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients With and Without Diabetes Mellitus

AIMS

Glucose and insulin metabolism are altered in hemodialysis patients, and diabetes management is difficult in these patients. We aimed to validate flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in hemodialysis patients with and without diabetes mellitus as an attractive option for glucose monitoring not requiring regular self-punctures.

METHODS

We measured interstitial glucose using a FreeStyle Libre device in eight hemodialysis patients with and seven without diabetes mellitus over 14 days and compared the results to simultaneously performed self-monitoring of capillary blood glucose (SMBG).

RESULTS

In 720 paired measurements, mean flash glucose values were significantly lower than self-measured capillary values (6.17±2.52 vs. 7.15±2.41 mmol/L, p=1.3 E-86). Overall, the mean absolute relative difference was 17.4%, and the mean absolute difference was 1.20 mmol/L. The systematic error was significantly larger in patients without vs. with diabetes (- 1.17 vs. - 0.82 mmol/L) and on dialysis vs. interdialytic days (-1.09 vs. -0.90 mmol/L). Compared to venous blood glucose (72 paired measurements), the systematic error of FGM was even larger (5.89±2.44 mmol/L vs. 7.78±7.25 mmol/L, p=3.74E-22). Several strategies to reduce the systematic error were evaluated, including the addition of +1.0 mmol/L as a correction term to all FGM values, which significantly improved accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

FGM systematically underestimates blood glucose in hemodialysis patients but, taking this systematic error into account, the system may be useful for glucose monitoring in hemodialysis patients with or without diabetes.

Flash glucose monitoring system in special situations

The management of diabetes mellitus (DM) requires maintaining glycemic control, and patients must keep their blood glucose levels close to the normal range to reduce the risk of microvascular complications and cardiovascular events. While glycated hemoglobin (A1C) is currently the primary measure for glucose management and a key marker for long-term complications, it does not provide information on acute glycemic excursions and overall glycemic variability. These limitations may even be higher in some special situations, thereby compromising A1C accuracy, especially when wider glycemic variability is expected and/or when the glycemic goal is more stringent. To attain adequate glycemic control, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is more useful than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), as it is more convenient and provides a greater amount of data. Flash Glucose Monitoring (isCGM /FGM) is a widely accepted option of CGM for measuring interstitial glucose levels in individuals with DM. However, its application under special conditions, such as pregnancy, patients on hemodialysis, patients with cirrhosis, during hospitalization in the intensive care unit and during physical exercise has not yet been fully validated. This review addresses some of these specific situations in which hypoglycemia should be avoided, or in pregnancy, where strict glycemic control is essential, and the application of isCGM/FGM could alleviate the shortcomings associated with poor glucose control or high glycemic variability, thereby contributing to high-quality care.

Flash Glucose Monitoring to Assess Glycemic Control and Variability in Hemodialysis Patients: The GIOTTO Study

Background: Flash glucose monitoring (FGM) is a technology with considerable differences compared to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), but it has been scarcely studied in hemodialysis patients. Thus, we aimed assessing the performance of FGM in such patients by comparison to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). We will also focus on estimation of glycemic control and variability, and their relationships with parameters of glucose homeostasis.

Methods: Thirty-one patients (20 with type 2 diabetes, T2DM, 11 diabetes-free, NODM) collected readings by FGM and SMBG for about 12 days on average. Readings by FGM and SMBG were compared by linear regression, Clarke error grid, and Bland-Altman analyses. Several indices of glycemic control and variability were computed. Ten patients also underwent oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for assessment of insulin sensitivity/resistance and insulin secretion/beta-cell function.

Results: Flash glucose monitoring and SMBG readings showed very good agreement in both T2DM and NODM (on average, 97 and 99% of readings during hemodialysis in A+B Clarke regions, respectively). Some glycemic control and variability indices were similar by FGM and SMBG (p = 0.06–0.9), whereas others were different (p = 0.0001–0.03). The majority of control and variability indices were higher in T2DM than in NODM, according to both FGM and SMBG (p = 0.0005–0.03). OGTT-based insulin secretion was inversely related to some variability indices according to FGM (R < −0.72, p < 0.02).

Conclusions: Based on our dataset, FGM appeared acceptable for glucose monitoring in hemodialysis patients, though partial disagreement with SMBG in glycemic control/variability assessment needs further investigations.