Transitioning insulin pump therapy from the outpatient to the inpatient setting: a review of 6 years' experience with 253 cases

Automated Insulin Delivery Technology in the Hospital: Update on Safety and Efficacy Data

OBJECTIVE

Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are a rapidly growing component in the area of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. As more patients use these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to assess safety if their use is allowed to continue in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted of the records of patients using AID technology upon admission to our hospital between June 2020 and December 2022. Adverse events and glycemic control of AID users were compared with patients using non-AID systems and with patients who had CSII discontinued.

RESULTS

There were 185 patients analyzed: 64 on AID, 86 on non-AID, and 35 who had CSII discontinued. The number of patients on AID increased over the course of the observation period, whereas non-AID users decreased. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels and percentage of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups, but the percentage of patient hyperglycemic measurements was significantly lower in the AID cohort. No adverse events (diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications, equipment malfunction) were reported in any either CSII cohort.

CONCLUSION

The type of CSII technology encountered in the hospital is shifting from non-AID toward AID technologies. This analysis supports earlier findings that outpatient AID systems can be successfully transitioned into the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to define if AID systems offer any advantage in glycemic control.

Differences in Glycemic Control for Inpatients with Type 1 Diabetes on Insulin Pump Versus Subcutaneous Insulin Therapy

BACKGROUND

Inpatient use of insulin pump therapy has been increasing due to greater availability of this technology, however there is a paucity of research that investigates glycemic control of inpatient insulin pump users.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the glycemic control of hospitalized patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who used insulin pump vs. multiple daily injections (MDI).

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with T1D who were hospitalized between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, in an academic medical center in the New York metropolitan area.

MAIN MEASURES

Patients were categorized into three groups based on their method of insulin administration: "pump only" group used insulin pump exclusively, "MDI only" group used MDI only, and "intermittent pump" group used a combination of both methods. The primary endpoints are mean blood glucose, rates of hypoglycemic events (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL), and rates of hyperglycemic events (blood glucose > 250 mg/dL). Separate multivariable Poisson regressions were performed to determine the association between the type of insulin administration and rate outcomes (i.e., rate of hypoglycemic events and rate of hyperglycemic events).

RESULTS

The study included 78 patients with a mean age of 51, who were mostly male (54%), and white (72%). The average proportion of glucose measurements that were hyperglycemic for the "pump only", "MDI only", and "intermittent pump" groups were 0.11 (SD = 0.11), 0.25 (SD = 0.19), and 0.24 (SD = 0.25), respectively. The "pump only" group has a significantly lower proportion of hyperglycemic events as compared to the "MDI only" group (p = 0.0227).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, patients who exclusively used their insulin pump while inpatient had a lower rate of hyperglycemic events than patients who used MDI only; suggesting that select patients can safely continue their insulin pump therapy in the inpatient setting.

Review Article - Diabetes Technology in the Hospital: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There have been many developments in diabetes technology in recent years, with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump therapy (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) becoming progressively accepted in outpatient diabetes care. However, the use of such advanced diabetes technology in the inpatient setting is still limited for several reasons, including logistical challenges and staff training needs. On the other hand, hospital settings with altered diet and stress-induced hyperglycemia often pose challenges to tight glycemic control using conventional treatment tools. Integrating smarter glucose monitoring and insulin delivery devices into the increasingly technical hospital environment could reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. This narrative review describes the most recent literature on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital and suggests avenues for further research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advanced diabetes technology has the potential to improve glycemic control in hospitalized people with and without diabetes, and could add particular value in certain conditions, such as nutrition therapy or perioperative management. Taken together, CGM allows for more accurate and patient-friendly follow-up and ad hoc titration of therapy. AID may also provide benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduced nursing workload. Before advanced diabetes technology can be used on a large scale in the hospital, further research is needed on efficacy, accuracy and safety, while implementation factors such as cost and staff training must also be overcome.

Type 1 Diabetes Management in the Hospital Setting

The incidence of diabetes in children and adolescents has increased during the past decades, with a 1.9% increase per year in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Patients with diabetes have a greater risk of hospitalizations compared with those without diabetes. Clear evidence has emerged in the past decade that supports appropriate glycemic control in the hospital setting to improve clinical outcomes and reduce the risk of hospital complications and mortality. Determining the appropriate insulin regimen in patients with T1DM in the hospital depends on the clinical status, type of outpatient insulin regimen (multiple daily injections versus pump therapy), glycemic control before admission, nutritional status, procedures, and enteral versus parenteral nutrition. Due to the complexity of the inpatient management of diabetes, institutions should have an inpatient diabetes management team that includes dietitians, diabetes educators, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and endocrinologists. The use of inpatient diabetes teams has been demonstrated to be beneficial in the management of patients with T1DM.

Home Insulin Pump Use in Hospitalized Children With Type 1 Diabetes

Importance

Pediatric data on inpatient home insulin pumps are absent in the literature. Understanding safety of home insulin pumps, managed by patients or caregivers, during times of illness will help diabetes technology securely move into pediatric hospitals.

Objective

To examine whether insulin can be safely and accurately delivered to hospitalized children through home insulin pumps when managed by patients or caregivers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study included children with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to a tertiary children's hospital from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. In all these patients, diabetes was the primary or secondary diagnosis on admission.

Exposure

Insulin delivery via home insulin pump, hospital insulin pump, or subcutaneous injection.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hyperglycemia (glucose, >250 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (glucose, <45 mg/dL) rates (quantified as the proportion of total insulin-days), glucose variability, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) recurrences were compared for hospital pumps (manual mode), home pumps (manual mode), and subcutaneous injections using bivariate tests.

Results

There were 18 096 insulin-days among 2738 patients aged 0.5 to 25 years (median age, 15.8 years [IQR, 12.3-18.3 years]). Overall, 990 (5.5%) of insulin-days involved hospital insulin pumps, and 775 (4.3%) involved home pumps. A total of 155 insulin-days (15.7%) involving hospital pumps were hyperglycemic, compared with 209 (27.0%) involving home pumps and 7374 (45.2%) involving injections (P < .001). Moderate hypoglycemia days comprised 31 insulin-days (3.1%) involving hospital pumps compared with 35 (4.5%) involving home pumps and 830 (5.1%) involving injections (P = .02). Severe hypoglycemia did not differ significantly according to insulin delivery method. Two patients using injections (0.01%) developed DKA; no patients using hospital or home pumps developed DKA.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, home insulin pump use was found to be safe in a children's hospital regarding hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. These data support use of home insulin pumps during pediatric admissions in patients who do not require intensive care and without active DKA.

Promoting Type 1 Diabetes Self-care Management in the Hospital: Can It Be Done?

PURPOSE

The specific aim of the study was to determine whether there was an increased time in target glucose range for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus who were permitted to self-manage their insulin plan while hospitalized.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 60 inpatients with type 1 diabetes mellitus who met the criteria to self-manage their diabetes care with the use of their continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump or a multiple daily injection insulin regimen. A comparison of the 2 groups was examined to assess differences in glucose outcomes and glycemic stability.

RESULTS

Seven hundred fifty-three glucose results were examined. The total number of hypoglycemic events in both groups was 37. The number of glucose values labeled as stable was 405, and the remaining 311 glucose values were categorized as hyperglycemic. There were no statistically significant differences in glucose levels between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

No patients experienced severe hypoglycemia leading to cognitive impairment or severe hyperglycemia leading to diabetic ketoacidosis. The outcomes of this study suggest that diabetes self-management practices in select individuals hospitalized with type 1 diabetes mellitus can contribute to greater glucose stability and time in targeted glucose range.

[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.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Pump Technology Can Be Safely Used in the Inpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, also known as automated insulin delivery systems, are a rapidly growing technology in diabetes management. Because more patients are using these systems in the outpatient setting, it is important to also assess inpatient safety to determine whether HCL use can be continued when those patients become hospitalized.

METHODS

The records of patients using HCL technology on admission to our hospital between June 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 71 patients divided into 3 categories based on their pump use as an inpatient: (1) HCL users; (2) manual pump users; and (3) pump removed. All cohorts were similar in age, sex, race, hemoglobin A1C at admission, and in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that patient-stay mean glucose levels, frequency of patient-specific hyperglycemic measurements, and frequency of hypoglycemic events were similar between all groups. No adverse events, particularly occurrences of diabetic ketoacidosis, pump site complications or infection, or equipment malfunction, were reported.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary case series review indicates that continued use of HCL technology in the hospital is safe. Moreover, glycemic control in HCL users was comparable with that in those using insulin pump with manual settings and those converted to basal-bolus insulin therapy.

Insulin Pumps and Hybrid Close Loop Systems Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care

This article is the second of a two-part series providing a scoping review and summary of the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital. The first part reviewed the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital. In this article, we focus on the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII; insulin pumps) and hybrid closed-loop systems in hospital. JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and are willing and capable of using CSII to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. CSII should be discontinued if the individual is critically ill or hemodynamically unstable. For individuals on hybrid closed-loop systems, the system should be discontinued from auto-mode, and may be used individually (as CGM only or CSII only, if criteria are met). Continuing in closed-loop mode may only be done so under specialist guidance from the Diabetes Team, where the diabetes teams are comfortable and knowledgeable about the specific devices used. Health care organizations need to have clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using these wearable technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting.

Supporting the Use of a Person's Own Diabetes Technology in the Inpatient Setting

The use of diabetes technology, including insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring devices, and automated insulin delivery systems, has increased significantly in recent years. As more people with diabetes adopt technology in the outpatient setting, we are seeing these devices more frequently in the inpatient setting. This review offers best-practice guidelines for the continuation of personal diabetes technology use in the inpatient setting. It describes policy and guideline stipulations, roles and responsibilities, and device- and brand-specific considerations. Although these devices are not approved for inpatient use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there is general expert consensus that the continuation of personal diabetes devices during hospitalization is appropriate for patients who have sufficient knowledge, are not critically ill, and retain sufficient mental capacity during an acute illness. Health care systems and inpatient providers need to understand the benefits and limitations of personal diabetes technology use during hospitalization.

Use of Cross-sectional and Perspective Mapping to Spatially and Statistically Represent Inpatient Glucose Control

BACKGROUND

The use of inpatient location for the depiction of glycemic control is an alternative approach to the traditional analysis of hospital-derived glucometric data. Our aim was to develop a method of spatial representation and to test for corresponding statistical variation in inpatient glucose control data.

METHODS

Point-of-care blood glucose data from inpatients with diabetes mellitus were extracted. Calculations included patient-day weighted means (PDWMs) and percentage of patient hospital days with hypoglycemia. Results were overlaid onto hospital floor plans, and room numbers were used as geolocators to generate cross-sectional (2-dimensional) and perspective (3-dimensional) views of the data. Linear mixed and mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the location effect and to assess statistical variation in the data after adjusting for age, sex, and severity of illness.

RESULTS

Visual inspection of cross-sectional and perspective maps demonstrated variation in glucometric outcomes across areas within the hospital. Statistical analysis confirmed significant variation between some hospital wings and floors.

CONCLUSIONS

Spatial depiction of glucometric data within the hospital could yield insights into hot spots of poor glycemic control. Future studies on how to operationalize this approach, and whether this method of analysis can drive changes in glycemic management practices, need to be conducted.

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.

Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusions vs. Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin in Hospitalized Patients: Glycemic Trends in the First 24 Hours of Admission

BACKGROUND

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a common diabetes treatment modality. Glycemic outcomes of patients using CSII in the first 24 hours of hospitalization have not been well studied. This timeframe is of particular importance because insulin pump settings are programmed to achieve tight outpatient glycemic targets which could result in hypoglycemia when patients are hospitalized.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated 216 hospitalized adult patients using CSII and 216 age-matched controls treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. Patients using CSII did not make changes to pump settings in the first 24 hours of admission. Blood glucose (BG) values within the first 24 hours of admission were collected. The primary outcome was frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes were frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (BG ≥ 180 mg/dL).

RESULTS

There were significantly fewer events of hypoglycemia [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.88, p = 0.007] and hyperglycemia (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96, p = 0.02) in the CSII group compared to the MDI group. There was a trend toward fewer events of severe hypoglycemia in the CSII group (IRR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.93, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients using CSII experienced fewer events of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in the first 24 hours of hospital admission than those treated with MDI. Our study demonstrates that CSII use is safe and effective for the treatment of diabetes within the first 24 hours of hospital admission.

Akkermansia, a Possible Microbial Marker for Poor Glycemic Control in Qataris Children Consuming Arabic Diet-A Pilot Study on Pediatric T1DM in Qatar

In Qatar, Type 1 Diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is one of the most prevalent disorders. This study aimed to explore the gut microbiome's relation to the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy, dietary habits, and the HbA1c level in the pediatric T1DM subjects in Qatar. We recruited 28 T1DM subjects with an average age of 10.5 ± 3.53 years. The stool sample was used to measure microbial composition by 16s rDNA sequencing method. The results have revealed that the subjects who had undergone CSII therapy had increased microbial diversity and genus Akkermansia was significantly enriched in the subjects without CSII therapy. Moreover, genus Akkermansia was higher in the subjects with poor glycemic control (HbA1c > 7.5%). When we classified the subjects based on dietary patterns and nationality, Akkermansia was significantly enriched in Qataris subjects without the CSII therapy consuming Arabic diet than expatriates living in Qatar and eating a Western/mixed diet. Thus, this pilot study showed that abundance of Akkermansia is dependent on the Arabic diet only in poorly controlled Qataris T1DM patients, opening new routes to personalized treatment for T1DM in Qataris pediatric subjects. Further comprehensive studies on the relation between the Arabic diet, ethnicity, and Akkermansia are warranted to confirm this preliminary finding.

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.

Efficacy of Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in a Hospital Setting: A Case Series

Objective

We report a case series of 4 patients with type 1 diabetes who used hybrid closed-loop insulin pumps (Medtronic MiniMed 670 G) during hospitalization.

Methods

Clinical data and point-of-care glucose values are presented for each patient. Glucose values are shown graphically while in manual mode as well as in auto mode.

Results

The first case was a 30-year-old man admitted for pancreatitis. Mean point-of-care blood glucose was 165.7 mg/dL while in auto mode, without hypoglycemia, compared with 221 mg/dL while in manual mode. The second case was a 28-year-old woman who was admitted for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Mean point-of-care blood glucose in auto mode was 131.3 mg/dL, without hypoglycemia, compared with 117.6 mg/dL while in manual mode. The third case was a 46-year-old man admitted to the intensive care unit for influenzal pneumonia. Mean point-of-care blood glucose in auto mode was 159.1 mg/dL without hypoglycemia, compared with 218.5 mg/dL while in manual mode. The fourth case was a 60-year-old man who remained in auto mode throughout his hospitalization except for a period when he removed his pump for an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound. His mean point-of-care blood glucose while in auto mode was 156.8 mg/dL without hypoglycemia.

Conclusion

These case reports support the use of hybrid closed-loop insulin-pump therapy in the inpatient setting to maintain inpatient glycemic targets and avoid hypoglycemia when part of an institution-sanctioned strategy for safe use of insulin pumps that includes point-of-care blood glucose monitoring.

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.

"Finding the Balance": A Qualitative Study of the Experience of Nurses and Patients with Diabetes on an Insulin Pump in the Hospital

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore experiences of hospitalized patients as they transition insulin pump self-management from home to hospital and the experience of nurses caring for them. Patients are often more knowledgeable about the pump than their nurses, which could lead to undiscovered challenges. Little is known about the hospital experience related to insulin pump therapy from nurses' and patients' perspectives.

METHODS

A qualitative approach with interpretive descriptive design and purposive sampling was used. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age, able to read and speak English, and admitted to non-ICU settings ≥20 hours. Eligible nurses cared for at least 1 patient using an insulin pump. Patients and nurses were interviewed separately. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. Coding was performed independently and jointly to reach consensus on emerging themes.

RESULTS

Hospitalized patients and nurses had an array of perceptions highlighting challenges and adaption to "finding the balance" in managing diabetes when patients wore their insulin pumps. There were 4 interrelated themes representing a continuum of trust to lack of trust, control versus lack of control, effective communication to limited communication, and staff knowledge to lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study provide valuable insights into the challenges for both patients and nurses. A standardized approach to caring for this population is necessary. These findings can inform the development of nursing education programs and policies aimed at improving their experiences.

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.

Future technology-enabled care for diabetes and hyperglycemia in the hospital setting

Patients with diabetes are increasingly common in hospital settings where optimal glycemic control remains challenging. Inpatient technology-enabled support systems are being designed, adapted and evaluated to meet this challenge. Insulin pump use, increasingly common in outpatients, has been shown to be safe among select inpatients. Dedicated pump protocols and provider training are needed to optimize pump use in the hospital. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be comparable to usual care for blood glucose surveillance in intensive care unit (ICU) settings but data on cost effectiveness is lacking. CGM use in non-ICU settings remains investigational and patient use of home CGM in inpatient settings is not recommended due to safety concerns. Compared to unstructured insulin prescription, a continuum of effective electronic medical record-based support for insulin prescription exists from passive order sets to clinical decision support to fully automated electronic Glycemic Management Systems. Relative efficacy and cost among these systems remains unanswered. An array of novel platforms are being evaluated to engage patients in technology-enabled diabetes education in the hospital. These hold tremendous promise in affording universal access to hospitalized patients with diabetes to effective self-management education and its attendant short/long term clinical benefits.

An Overview of Safety Issues on Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in the Hospital

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Summarize safety issues related to patients using insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) in the outpatient setting when they are hospitalized and to review steps that can be taken to mitigate risk associated with use or discontinuation of these devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent consensus conferences were held on the topics of inpatient use of insulin pumps and CGMS devices. In addition to commonly known safety issues (e.g., device malfunction, infection), cybersecurity and the vulnerability of contemporary technology to hacking have emerged. CGMS capabilities offer the promise of advancing the goal for development of glucometry (centralized monitoring of real-time glucose data). Strategies to assuring safe use of insulin pumps and CGMS in the hospital include collaboration between the patient and staff, proper patient selection, and clear policies and procedures outlining safe use. Available data indicates few adverse events associated with these devices in the hospital. Current data suggests, with proper patient selection and a clear process in place for glycemic management, that adverse events are rare, and consensus favors allowing use of the technology in the hospital. The topic of insulin pump and CGMS in the hospital would greatly benefit from more institutions reporting on their experiences and prospective clinical trials.

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.

The process of incorporating insulin pumps into the everyday lives of people with Type 1 diabetes: A critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump therapy (IPT) is a technological advancement that has been developed to help people manage Type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, ways of managing diabetes requiring the implementation of health technologies bring new complexities and a need to understand the factors which enable people with T1D to incorporate a novel device. This new comprehension could provide an exemplar for people with long-term conditions to incorporate new technologies more generally.

OBJECTIVE

To determine what influences the incorporation, adaptation and use of IPT into the everyday lives of people living with diabetes.

DESIGN

Critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) using systematic searches undertaken in 7 electronic databases of literature, published 2008 onwards.

RESULTS

A total of 4998 titles were identified, 274 abstracts reviewed, 39 full articles retrieved and 22 papers selected for analysis. Three themes emerged which were of relevance to the introduction and use of IPT; Tensions between expectations and experiences in adoption and early adaptation; Negotiation of responsibility and accessing support; Reflexivity, active experimentation and feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

This CIS builds on earlier reviews on lived experiences of IPT. Novel insights are offered through examination of the experiences of pump users from children through to adults, their families and health-care professionals. Expectations of what the device can do to improve self-management impacts on the early stages of adoption as the reality of the technology requires substantial thought and action. Areas for intervention to improve IPT incorporation include establishing who is responsible for management tasks of the device and enabling navigation to further means of support and resources.

Consensus Statement on Use of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy in the Hospital

In May 2017, the Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts on inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in the hospital. The panel (1) discussed evidence for current use of CSII in the hospital, (2) recommended contraindications for use in the hospital, and (3) recommended guidelines to maximize chances for safe use of CSII in the hospital. Panel members agreed that larger, prospective, randomized studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy of CSII use in the hospital. As CSII technology becomes more complex and its use increases, it is imperative that institutional protocols be in place to ensure safe use of this technology and safe transitions across care areas. Providers need to be cognizant that not all patients currently using CSII as an outpatient are appropriate candidates for continued use in the hospital. This consensus statement provides guidelines for practitioners who may encounter patients using this technology in the inpatient 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.

Keeping Up with the Diabetes Technology: 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines of Insulin Pump Therapy and Continuous Glucose Monitor Management of Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decades after the invention of insulin pump, diabetes management has encountered a technology revolution with the introduction of continuous glucose monitoring, sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and closed-loop/artificial pancreas systems. In this review, we discuss the significance of the 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines for insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring and summarize findings from relevant diabetes technology studies that were conducted after the publication of the 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

The 2016 Endocrine Society Guidelines have been a great resource for clinicians managing diabetes in this new era of diabetes technology. There is good body of evidence indicating that using diabetes technology systems safely tightens glycemic control while managing both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The first-generation diabetes technology systems will evolve as we gain more experience and collaboratively work to improve them with an ultimate goal of keeping people with diabetes complication and burden-free until the cure for diabetes becomes a reality.

Management of Type 1 Diabetes in the Hospital Setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article was to review recent guideline recommendations on glycemic target, glucose monitoring, and therapeutic strategies, while providing practical recommendations for the management of medical and surgical patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) admitted to critical and non-critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies evaluating safety and efficacy of insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, electronic glucose management systems, and closed loop systems for the inpatient management of hyperglycemia are described. Due to the increased prevalence and life expectancy of patients with type 1 diabetes, a growing number of these patients require hospitalization every year. Inpatient diabetes management is complex and is best provided by a multidisciplinary diabetes team. In the absence of such resource, providers and health care staff must become familiar with the features of this condition to avoid complications such as severe hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, or glycemic variability. We reviewed most recent guidelines and relevant literature in the topic to provide practical recommendations for the inpatient management of patients with T1D.

Insulin Pump Malfunction During Hospitalization: Two Case Reports

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump malfunctions and failures continue to occur; however, more severe malfunctions such as the "runaway pump" phenomenon are rarely reported. This article describes two cases of pump malfunction in which pump users appear to have received an unsolicited bolus of insulin resulting in severe episodes of hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Both cases of insulin pump malfunction occurred in the inpatient setting at a large academic medical center in the United States. An analysis of the corresponding insulin pump downloads was performed. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database was searched for similar cases involving Medtronic (Northridge, CA) insulin pumps using the terms "pump," "infusion," "insulin AND malfunction AND Medtronic."

RESULTS

The two cases described show remarkable similarities, each demonstrating a severe hypoglycemic event preceded by an infusion site change followed by an alarm. In both cases a rapid spraying of insulin was reported. The insulin pump downloads validated much of the patients' and medical staff's descriptions of events. The FDA's MAUDE database search revealed 425 cases meeting our search term criteria. All cases were reviewed. Seven cases were identified involving independent movement of the reservoir piston.

CONCLUSIONS

The cases detailed are the first to describe an insulin pump malfunction of this nature in the hospital setting involving unsolicited insulin boluses leading to severe hypoglycemia. The cases are particularly compelling in that they were witnessed by medical personnel. Providers and patients should receive instruction education on the recognition and management of insulin pump malfunction.

Clinical outcomes of adult inpatients treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

AIMS

To provide a systematic review of the current evidence concerning the diabetes-related outcomes of patients provided with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for treating diabetes mellitus while a hospital inpatient.

METHODS

Relevant publications were obtained from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases concerning hospital inpatients with diabetes being treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Studies were assessed independently by two reviewers, and data on the following outcomes were extracted: inpatient mortality; clinical complications, e.g. diabetic ketoacidosis; hyperglycaemia; hypoglycaemia; length of hospital stay; mean bedside glucose level; and glucose level on discharge. Obstetric cases were examined separately to look at maternal and neonatal glycaemic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies met the required criteria and were analysed in detail, 5 of which were predominantly obstetric. No significant complications were reported, with no incidences of death, ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycaemia. Length of hospital stay appeared to be shorter in those patients who remained on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, while data on mild hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited data available to form a significant conclusion about the safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion continuation in hospital; however, its use can be justified with the presence of a specialized inpatient diabetes team for advice and support and an alternative treatment regime (e.g. subcutaneous basal bolus) should be accessible if the need were to arise.

RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF GLYCEMIC CONTROL FOLLOWING TRANSITION FROM THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT IN A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF U.S. HOSPITALS

OBJECTIVE

Retrospective study to evaluate glycemic control outcomes after transition from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a non-ICU area in a national sample of U.S. hospitals.

METHODS

Mean point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) data were assessed overall and at 24 hours before and up to 72 hours after the transition. Comparisons in glucose variability (standard deviation of POC-BG data) were assessed. Impact on glycemic control was evaluated after accounting for hospital characteristics through logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

POC-BG data were obtained from 576 hospitals. Overall mean (SD) POC-BG values in ICU versus non-ICU areas were 176 (24) versus 169 (21) mg/dL (P<.01). Mean (SD) of the ICU POC-BG data were 76 (16) versus 73 (16) mg/dL in the non-ICU data (P<.01). However, when comparing values of POC-BG in the last 24-hour ICU period with those from up to 72 hours posttransition, we found no differences, indicative of overall stable glycemic control and variability after transition. Any deterioration of glucose control following the transition was significantly associated with hospital size (P<.01): the smallest hospitals had the highest percentage of these cases. In addition, geographic region showed significant variability (P = .04), with hospitals in the Midwest and West having the highest proportion of cases in which glycemic control worsened following the transition.

CONCLUSION

Glycemic control and variability did not change after transition from the ICU, but outcomes may depend on certain hospital characteristics. Inpatient glycemic control assessment should move beyond just cross-sectional studies and consider the impact of transitioning across inpatient areas. Other statistical approaches to studying this question should be evaluated.

Patient Self-Management of Diabetes Care in the Inpatient Setting: Pro

Patients should be allowed to manage their diabetes in the hospital. Diabetes mellitus is a common and sometimes difficult to control medical issue in hospitalized patients. Oftentimes patients who have been controlling their diabetes well as an outpatient are not allowed to continue this management on the inpatient setting, which can lead to hypo- and hyperglycemia. Involving the patient in his or her diabetes care, including self-management in select patients, may provide a safe and effective way of improving glycemic control and patient satisfaction. This may particularly benefit the dosing and coordination of meal-time.

Update on a Quality Initiative to Standardize Perioperative Care for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the analysis was to review the effectiveness of a care process model (CPM) developed to guide management of patients on insulin pump therapy undergoing elective surgical procedures.

METHODS

Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess the impact of the CPM on documentation of insulin pump status, glucose monitoring, and safety during the perioperative phase of care. Post-CPM care was compared with management provided before CPM implementation.

RESULTS

We reviewed 45 cases on insulin pump therapy in the pre-CPM cohort and 106 in the post-CPM cohort. Demographic characteristics, categories of surgery, and perioperative times were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Recommended hemoglobin A1c monitoring occurred in 73% of cases in the pre-CPM cohort but improved to 94% in the post-CPM group (P < .01). There was a higher frequency of documentation of the insulin pump during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postanesthesia care unit segments of care in the post- vs pre-CPM periods (all P < .01). The number of cases with intraoperative glucose monitoring increased (57% pre-CPM vs 81% post-CPM; P < .01). Glycemic control was comparable between the 2 CPM periods. Hypoglycemia was rare, with only 3 episodes in the pre-CPM group and 4 in the post-CPM. No adverse events associated with perioperative insulin pump use were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis adds to previous data on use of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period. Some processes require additional attention, but data continue to indicate that a standardized approach to care can lead to a successful and safe transition of insulin pump therapy throughout the perioperative period.

Insulin pump patient characteristics and glucose control in the hospitalized setting

Patients' knowledge of their insulin pumps and glucose control during hospitalization has not been studied. The aim was to study the determinants of glycemic control in patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in the hospital. Three groups of patients were identified: those who did not need any inpatient education and continued on CSII (gorup A), those who received education then continued on CSII (group B), and those for whom CSII was not appropriate and were treated with multiple daily insulin injections (gorup C). We compared the measures of glycemic control between the 3 groups and analyzed which variables impacted glucose control. There were 50 patients, with 51 hospital admissions, 57% males, mean age 48 ± 13 years, 86% had type 1 diabetes (T1DM). The mean DM duration was 26 ± 14 years, mean duration of CSII use was 8.7 ± 6 years, and mean HbA1c was 7.6 ± 1.4%. The mean duration of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 4.6 days. Mean blood glucose (BG) and frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemic events among the 3 groups adjusted for their duration of hospital stay were not statistically different. None of the patients developed diabetic ketoacidosis while using their pump. Stepwise multivariate analysis revealed knowledge of hypoglycemia correction was the single most important predictor of mean BG (P < .001). Patients who received inpatient education performed similarly to patients who did not need inpatient education. Patients who receive inpatient education on CSII fare similar as patients who did not require inpatient education.

Approach to the adult hospitalized patient on an insulin pump

Patients on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, or insulin pumps, are increasingly seen in hospitals. Inpatient providers need to have a working knowledge of insulin pumps to be able to decide, in conjunction with the patient whenever feasible, whether or not pump use is to be continued in the hospital, to assist patients in adjusting insulin doses via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, to transition patients to multiple daily subcutaneous insulin dosing as appropriate, and to prevent or manage problems that might arise from improper handling of the insulin pump. Clinical vignettes with key points and strategies for patient care are discussed in this article.

Description and preliminary evaluation of a diabetes technology simulation course

BACKGROUND

We aim to provide data on a diabetes technology simulation course (DTSC) that instructs internal medicine residents in the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) devices.

METHODS

The DTSC was implemented during calendar year 2012 and conducted in the institution's simulation center. It consisted of a set of prerequisites, a practicum, and completion of a web-based inpatient CSII-ordering simulation. DTSC participants included only those residents in the outpatient endocrinology rotation. Questionnaires were used to determine whether course objectives were met and to assess the satisfaction of residents with the course. Questionnaires were also administered before and after the endocrine rotation to gauge improvement in familiarity with CSII and CGMS technologies.

RESULTS

During the first year, 12 of 12 residents in the outpatient endocrinology rotation completed the DTSC. Residents reported that the course objectives were fully met. The mean satisfaction score with the course ranged from 4.0 to 4.9 (maximum, 5), with most variables rated above 4.5. Self-reported familiarity with the operation of CSII and CGMS devices increased significantly in the postrotation survey compared with that on the prerotation survey (both p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot program, simulation-based education increased the perceived familiarity of residents with CSII and CGMS technologies. In light of these preliminary findings, the course will continue to be offered, with further data accrual. Future work will involve piloting the DTSC approach among other types of providers, such as residents in other specialties or inpatient nursing staff.