Round Table Discussion on Inpatient Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring at the International Hospital Diabetes Meeting

Artificial intelligence in critically ill diabetic patients: current status and future prospects

Recent years have witnessed increasing numbers of artificial intelligence (AI) based applications and devices being tested and approved for medical care. Diabetes is arguably the most common chronic disorder worldwide and AI is now being used for making an early diagnosis, to predict and diagnose early complications, increase adherence to therapy, and even motivate patients to manage diabetes and maintain glycemic control. However, these AI applications have largely been tested in non-critically ill patients and aid in managing chronic problems. Intensive care units (ICUs) have a dynamic environment generating huge data, which AI can extract and organize simultaneously, thus analysing many variables for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes in order to predict outcomes of interest. Even non-diabetic ICU patients are at risk of developing hypo or hyperglycemia, complicating their ICU course and affecting outcomes. In addition, to maintain glycemic control frequent blood sampling and insulin dose adjustments are required, increasing nursing workload and chances of error. AI has the potential to improve glycemic control while reducing the nursing workload and errors. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, which are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for use in non-critically ill patients, are now being recommended for use in specific ICU populations with increased accuracy. AI based devices including artificial pancreas and CGM regulated insulin infusion system have shown promise as comprehensive glycemic control solutions in critically ill patients. Even though many of these AI applications have shown potential, these devices need to be tested in larger number of ICU patients, have wider availability, show favorable cost-benefit ratio and be amenable for easy integration into the existing healthcare systems, before they become acceptable to ICU physicians for routine use.

Impact of COVID-19 on Health Economics and Technology of Diabetes Care: Use Cases of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Transform Health Care During a Global Pandemic

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed vulnerabilities and placed tremendous financial pressure on nearly all aspects of the U.S. health care system. Diabetes care is an example of the confluence of the pandemic and heightened importance of technology in changing care delivery. It has been estimated the added total direct U.S. medical cost burden due to COVID-19 to range between $160B (20% of the population infected) and $650B (80% of the population infected) over the course of the pandemic. The corresponding range for the population with diabetes is between $16B and $65B, representing between 5% and 20% of overall diabetes expenditure in the United States. We examine the evidence to support allocating part of this added spend to infrastructure capabilities to accelerate remote monitoring and management of diabetes. Methods and Results: We reviewed recent topical literature and COVID-19-related analyses in the public health, health technology, and health economics fields in addition to databases and surveys from government sources and the private sector. We summarized findings on use cases for real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the community, for telehealth, and in the hospital setting to highlight the successes and challenges of accelerating the adoption of a digital technology out of necessity during the pandemic and beyond. Conclusions: One critical and lasting consequence of the pandemic will be the accelerated adoption of digital technology in health care delivery. We conclude by discussing ways in which the changes wrought by COVID-19 from a health care, policy, and economics perspective can add value and are likely to endure postpandemic.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Proposed Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Care of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected patients with diabetes. Mounting evidence has shown that adequate inpatient glycemic control may decrease the risk of mortality. In critically ill patients, insulin drips are the most effective means of controlling blood glucose. However, resource limitations such as the availability of protective equipment and nursing time have discouraged the use of insulin drips during COVID-19. In this commentary, we review existing evidence on the importance of glycemic control in COVID-19 patients with diabetes and propose a protocol for utilizing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) to improve glycemic control by decreasing the need for bedside management in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

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.

Safety and Accuracy of Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Background: Pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may be at risk for malglycemia and adverse outcomes, including infection, prolonged hospital stays, organ dysfunction, graft-versus-host-disease, delayed hematopoietic recovery, and increased mortality. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may aid in describing and treating malglycemia in this population. However, no studies have demonstrated safety, tolerability, or accuracy of CGM in this uniquely immunocompromised population. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted, using the Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro, in patients aged 2-30 undergoing HSCT at Children's Hospital Colorado to evaluate continuous glycemia in this population. CGM occurred up to 7 days before and 60 days after HSCT, during hospitalization only. In a secondary analysis of this data, blood glucoses collected during routine HSCT care were compared with CGM values to evaluate accuracy. Adverse events and patient refusal to wear CGM device were monitored to assess safety and tolerability. Results: Participants (n = 29; median age 13.1 years, [interquartile range] [4.7, 16.6] years) wore 84 sensors for an average of 25 [21.5, 30.0] days per participant. Paired serum-sensor values (n = 893) demonstrated a mean absolute relative difference of 20% ± 14% with Clarke Error Grid analysis showing 99% of pairs in the clinically acceptable Zones (A+B). There were four episodes of self-limited bleeding (4.8% of sensors); no other adverse events occurred. Six patients (20.7%) refused subsequent CGM placements. Conclusions: CGM use appears safe and feasible although with suboptimal accuracy in the hospitalized pediatric HSCT population. Few adverse events occurred, all of which were low grade.

Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill

Hyperglycemia is common in the intensive care unit (ICU) both in patients with and without a previous diagnosis of diabetes. The optimal glucose range in the ICU population is still a matter of debate. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with intensive insulin therapy, current recommendations include treating hyperglycemia after two consecutive glucose >180 mg/dL with target levels of 140-180 mg/dL for most patients. The optimal method of sampling glucose and delivery of insulin in critically ill patients remains elusive. While point of care glucose meters are not consistently accurate and have to be used with caution, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is not standard of care, nor is it generally recommended for inpatient use. Intravenous insulin therapy using paper or electronic protocols remains the preferred approach for critically ill patients. The advent of new technologies, such as electronic glucose management, CGM, and closed-loop systems, promises to improve inpatient glycemic control in the critically ill with lower rates of hypoglycemia.

The Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Diabetes Smartphone Applications, and Self-Care Behavior in Glycemic Control: Results of a Multi-National Online Survey

Background: This study investigated the determinants (with a special emphasis on the role of diabetes app use, use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device, and self-care behavior) of glycemic control of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: A web-based survey was conducted using diabetes Facebook groups, online patient-forums, and targeted Facebook advertisements (ads). Demographic, CGM, diabetes app use, and self-care behavior data were collected. Glycemic level data were categorized into hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and good control. Multinomial logistic regression stratified by diabetes type was performed. Results: The survey URL was posted in 78 Facebook groups and eight online forums, and ten targeted Facebook ads were conducted yielding 1854 responses. Of those owning smartphones (n = 1753, 95%), 1052 (62.6%) had type 1 and 630 (37.4%) had type 2 DM. More than half of the type 1 respondents (n = 549, 52.2%) and one third the respondents with type 2 DM (n = 210, 33.3%) reported using diabetes apps. Increased odds of experiencing hyperglycemia were noted in persons with type 1 DM with lower educational status (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.7; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.21–2.39); smokers (1.63, 95% CI: 1.15–2.32), and high diabetes self-management concern (AOR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.15–2.32). CGM use (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44–1.00); “general diet” (AOR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79–0.94); and “blood glucose monitoring” (AOR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80–0.97) self-care behavior reduced the odds of experiencing hyperglycemia. Hypoglycemia in type 1 DM was reduced by using CGM (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.09–0.60), while it was increased by experiencing a high diabetes self-management concern (AOR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.04–3.61). Hyperglycemia in type 2 DM was increased by age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00–1.04); high self-management concern (AOR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.74–3.84); and poor confidence in self-management capacity (AOR = 3.22, 2.07–5.00). Conversely, diabetes app use (AOR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41–0.96) and “general diet” self-care (AOR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75–0.94), were significantly associated with the reduced odds of hyperglycemia. Conclusion: Diabetes apps, CGM, and educational interventions aimed at reducing self-management concerns and enhancing dietary self-care behavior and self-management confidence may help patients with diabetes to improve glycemic control.

Don't Sugar Coat It: Glycemic Control in the Intensive Care Unit

Stress hyperglycemia is the transient increase in blood glucose as a result of complex hormonal changes that occur during critical illness. It has been described in the critically ill for nearly 200 years; patient harm, including increases in morbidity, mortality, and lengths of stay, has been associated with hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability. However, there remains a contentious debate regarding the optimal glucose ranges for this population, most notably within the past 15 years. Recent landmark clinical trials have dramatically changed the treatment of stress hyperglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Earlier studies suggested that tight glucose control improved both morbidity and mortality for ICU patients, but later studies have suggested potential harm related to the development of hypoglycemia. Multiple trials have tried to elucidate potential glucose target ranges for special patient populations, including those with diabetes, trauma, sepsis, cardiac surgery, and brain injuries, but there remains conflicting evidence for most of these subpopulations. Currently, most international organizations recommend targeting moderate blood glucose concentration to levels <180 mg/dL for all patients in the intensive care unit. In this review, the history of stress hyperglycemia and its treatment will be discussed including optimal glucose target ranges, devices for monitoring blood glucose, and current professional organizations' recommendations regarding glucose control in the ICU.

Understanding of type 1 diabetes mellitus: what we know and where we go

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide. Combined effects of genetic and environmental factors cause T1DM, which make it difficult to predict whether an individual will inherit the disease. Due to the level of self-care necessary in T1DM maintenance, it is crucial for pediatric settings to support achieving optimal glucose control, especially when adolescents are beginning to take more responsibility for their own health. Innovative insulin delivery systems, such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and noninvasive glucose monitoring systems, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), allow patients with T1DM to achieve a normal and flexible lifestyle. However, there are still challenges in achieving optimal glucose control despite advanced technology in T1DM administration. In this article, disease prediction and current management of T1DM are reviewed with special emphasis on biomarkers of pancreatic β-cell stress, CSII, glucose monitoring, and several other adjunctive therapies.

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.

Perioperative Management of Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Cardiac Surgery Patients

Perioperative hyperglycemia is common after cardiac surgery, reported in 60% to 90% of patients with diabetes and in approximately 60% of patients without history of diabetes. Many observational and prospective randomized trials in critically-ill cardiac surgery patients support a strong association between hyperglycemia and poor clinical outcome. Despite ongoing debate about the optimal glucose target, there is strong agreement that improved glycemic control reduces perioperative complications.

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.

Continuous glucose monitoring: A review of the technology and clinical use

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an increasingly adopted technology for insulin-requiring patients that provides insights into glycemic fluctuations. CGM can assist patients in managing their diabetes with lifestyle and medication adjustments. This article provides an overview of the technical and clinical features of CGM based on a review of articles in PubMed on CGM from 1999 through January 31, 2017. A detailed description is presented of three professional (retrospective), three personal (real-time) continuous glucose monitors, and three sensor integrated pumps (consisting of a sensor and pump that communicate with each other to determine an optimal insulin dose and adjust the delivery of insulin) that are currently available in United States. We have reviewed outpatient CGM outcomes, focusing on hemoglobin A1c (A1C), hypoglycemia, and quality of life. Issues affecting accuracy, detection of glycemic variability, strategies for optimal use, as well as cybersecurity and future directions for sensor design and use are discussed. In conclusion, CGM is an important tool for monitoring diabetes that has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Given currently available data and technological developments, we believe that with appropriate patient education, CGM can also be considered for other patient populations.

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.

Consensus Statement on Inpatient Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

In June 2016, Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts in inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital. This discussion combined with a literature review was a follow-up to a meeting, which took place in May 2015. The panel reviewed evidence on use of CGM in 3 potential inpatient scenarios: (1) the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) non-ICU, and (3) transitioning outpatient CGM use into the hospital setting. Panel members agreed that data from limited studies and theoretical considerations suggested that use of CGM in the hospital had the potential to improve patient clinical outcomes, and in particular reduction of hypoglycemia. Panel members discussed barriers to widespread adoption of CGM, which patients would benefit most from use of this technology, and what type of outcome studies are needed to guide use of CGM in the inpatient setting.

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.

The Case for Diabetes Population Health Improvement: Evidence-Based Programming for Population Outcomes in Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to describe diabetes within a population health improvement framework and to review the evidence for a diabetes population health continuum of intervention approaches, including diabetes prevention and chronic and acute diabetes management, to improve clinical and economic outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have shown that compared to usual care, lifestyle interventions in prediabetes lower diabetes risk at the population-level and that group-based programs have low incremental medial cost effectiveness ratio for health systems. Effective outpatient interventions that improve diabetes control and process outcomes are multi-level, targeting the patient, provider, and healthcare system simultaneously and integrate community health workers as a liaison between the patient and community-based healthcare resources. A multi-faceted approach to diabetes management is also effective in the inpatient setting. Interventions shown to promote safe and effective glycemic control and use of evidence-based glucose management practices include provider reminder and clinical decision support systems, automated computer order entry, provider education, and organizational change. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of multi-faceted outpatient and inpatient diabetes management programs to determine the best financial models for incorporating them into diabetes population health strategies.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Recent Studies Demonstrating Improved Glycemic Outcomes

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) has been demonstrated to be clinically valuable, reducing risks of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, glycemic variability (GV), and improving patient quality of life for a wide range of patient populations and clinical indications. Use of CGM can help reduce HbA1c and mean glucose. One CGM device, with accuracy (%MARD) of approximately 10%, has recently been approved for self-adjustment of insulin dosages (nonadjuvant use) and approved for reimbursement for therapeutic use in the United States. CGM had previously been used off-label for that purpose. CGM has been demonstrated to be clinically useful in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes for patients receiving a wide variety of treatment regimens. CGM is beneficial for people using either multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). CGM is used both in retrospective (professional, masked) and real-time (personal, unmasked) modes: both approaches can be beneficial. When CGM is used to suspend insulin infusion when hypoglycemia is detected until glucose returns to a safe level (low-glucose suspend), there are benefits beyond sensor-augmented pump (SAP), with greater reduction in the risk of hypoglycemia. Predictive low-glucose suspend provides greater benefits in this regard. Closed-loop control with insulin provides further improvement in quality of glycemic control. A hybrid closed-loop system has recently been approved by the U.S. FDA. Closed-loop control using both insulin and glucagon can reduce risk of hypoglycemia even more. CGM facilitates rigorous evaluation of new forms of therapy, characterizing pharmacodynamics, assessing frequency and severity of hypo- and hyperglycemia, and characterizing several aspects of GV.