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

Threshold of hyperglycaemia associated with mortality in critically ill patients: a multicentre, prospective, observational study using continuous glucose monitoring

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides comprehensive information on the exposure to dysglycaemia. This study aimed to investigate the threshold of hyperglycaemia related to mortality risk in critically ill patients using CGM technology.

METHODS

A total of 293 adult critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units of five medical centres were prospectively included between May 2020 and November 2021. Participants wore intermittently scanned CGM for a median of 12.0 days. The relationships between different predefined time above ranges (TARs), with the thresholds of hyperglycaemia ranging from 7.8 to 13.9 mmol/l (140-250 mg/dl), and in-hospital mortality risk were assessed by multivariate Cox proportional regression analysis. Time in ranges (TIRs) of 3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) to the predefined hyperglycaemic thresholds were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 66 (22.5%) in-hospital deaths were identified. Only TARs with a threshold of 10.5 mmol/l (190 mg/dl) or above were significantly associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality, after adjustment for covariates. Furthermore, as the thresholds for TAR increased from 10.5 mmol/l to 13.9 mmol/l (190 mg/dl to 250 mg/dl), the hazards of in-hospital mortality increased incrementally with every 10% increase in TARs. Similar results were observed concerning the associations between TIRs with various upper thresholds and in-hospital mortality risk. For per absolute 10% decrease in TIR 3.9-10.5 mmol/l (70-190 mg/dl), the risk of in-hospital mortality was increased by 12.1% (HR 1.121 [95% CI 1.003, 1.253]).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

A glucose level exceeding 10.5 mmol/l (190 mg/dl) was significantly associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients.

Recommendations on the use of the flash continuous glucose monitoring system in hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring can improve glycemic control for hospitalized patients with diabetes, according to current evidence. However, there is a lack of consensus-established recommendations for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes using flash continuous glucose monitoring system (fCGM) in Latin America. Therefore, this expert consensus exercise aimed to establish guidelines on the implementation of fCGM in the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America.

METHODS

The modified Delphi method was applied on a panel of nine specialists, establishing consensus at 80%. A twenty-two-question instrument was developed to establish recommendations on the use of fCGM in hospitalized patients living with diabetes.

RESULTS

Based on consensus, experts recommend the use of fCGM in hospitalized patients with diabetes starting at admission or whenever hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/dl) is confirmed and continue monitoring throughout the entire hospital stay. The recommended frequency of fCGM scans varies depending on the patient's age and diabetes type: ten scans per day for pediatric patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, adult patients with type 1 diabetes and pregnant patients, and seven scans for adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Different hospital services can benefit from fCGM, including the emergency room, internal medicine departments, intensive care units, surgery rooms, and surgery wards.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fCGM is recommended for patients with diabetes starting at the time of admission in hospitals in Latin America, whenever the necessary resources (devices, education, personnel) are available.

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.

Accuracy and Feasibility of Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients After Abdominal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Glycemia management in critical care is posing a challenge in frequent measuring and adequate insulin dose adjustment. In recent years, continuous glucose measurement has gained accuracy and reliability in outpatient and inpatient settings. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in ICU patients after major abdominal surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included patients undergoing pancreatic surgery and solid organ transplantation (liver, pancreas, islets of Langerhans, kidney) requiring an ICU stay after surgery. We used a Dexcom G6 sensor, placed in the infraclavicular region, for real-time CGM. Arterial blood glucose measured by the amperometric principle (ABL 800; Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) served as a reference value and for calibration. Blood glucose was also routinely monitored by a StatStrip bedside glucose meter. Sensor accuracy was assessed by mean absolute relative difference (MARD), bias, modified Bland-Altman plot, and surveillance error grid for paired samples of glucose values from CGM and acid-base analyzer (ABL).

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 61 patients and obtained 1,546 paired glucose values from CGM and ABL. Active sensor use was 95.1%. MARD was 9.4%, relative bias was 1.4%, and 92.8% of values fell in zone A, 6.1% fell in zone B, and 1.2% fell in zone C of the surveillance error grid. Median time in range was 78%, with minimum (<1%) time spent in hypoglycemia. StatStrip glucose meter MARD compared with ABL was 5.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows clinically applicable accuracy and reliability of Dexcom G6 CGM in postoperative ICU patients and a feasible alternative sensor placement site.

Summary of clinical investigation plan for The DIATEC trial: in-hospital diabetes management by a diabetes team and continuous glucose monitoring or point of care glucose testing - a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing.

METHODS

This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number NCT05803473 on March 27th 2023.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cardio-renal-metabolic disease in primary care setting

In the primary care setting providers have more tools available than ever before to impact positively obesity, diabetes, and their complications, such as renal and cardiac diseases. It is important to recognise what is available for treatment taking into account diabetes heterogeneity. For those who develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM), effective treatments are available that for the first time have shown a benefit in reducing mortality and macrovascular complications, in addition to the well-established benefits of glucose control in reducing microvascular complications. Some of the newer medications for treating hyperglycaemia have also a positive impact in reducing heart failure (HF). Technological advances have also contributed to improving the quality of care in patients with diabetes. The use of technology, such as continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), has improved significantly glucose and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values, while limiting the frequency of hypoglycaemia. Other technological support derives from the use of predictive algorithms that need to be refined to help predict those subjects who are at great risk of developing the disease and/or its complications, or who may require care by other specialists. In this review we also provide recommendations for the optimal use of the new medications; sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-like peptide-receptor agonists 1 (GLP1RA) in the primary care setting considering the relevance of these drugs for the management of T2DM also in its early stage.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnancy

Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Optimal glycemic control is associated with improved outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring is a less invasive alternative to blood glucose measurements. Two types of continuous glucose monitoring are available in the market: real time and intermittently scanned. Continuous glucose monitoring is gaining popularity and is now recommended by some societies for glucose monitoring in pregnant women. In this review, we discuss the differences between the two types of continuous glucose monitoring, optimal treatment goals, and whether there is an improvement in maternal or neonatal outcomes.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors Upon Hospital Discharge of People With Diabetes: Promise, Barriers, and Opportunity

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have increasingly been used in ambulatory and inpatient or hospital settings to improve glycemic outcomes for people with diabetes. Given their capacity to aid individuals in avoiding hypo- and hyperglycemia, they may also be useful when transitioning from hospital to home by reducing rates of hospital readmissions and emergency department visits. Several types of barriers presently exist that make the deployment of CGMs at the time of hospital discharge problematic, including (1) regulatory, (2) behavioral, (3) logistical, (4) technical, (5) staffing, and (6) systemic issues. In this commentary, we review the literature, discuss these barriers, and propose possible solutions to facilitate the use of CGMs in people with diabetes at the time of hospital discharge.

Intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring is safe and useful in postsurgical glucose monitoring after pancreatoduodenectomy

AIMS

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) systems have not been thoroughly evaluated during in-hospital stay, and there are concerns about accuracy during various conditions. Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy have an increased risk of hyperglycaemia after surgery which is aggravated by parenteral nutrition therapy. This study aims to evaluate glycaemic control and safety during insulin infusion in a surgical non-ICU ward, using a hybrid glucose monitoring approach with isCMG and periodic point-of-care (POC) testing.

METHODS

We prospectively included 100 patients with a resectable pancreatic tumour. After surgery, continuous insulin infusion was initiated when POC glucose was > 7 mmol/l and titrated to maintain glucose between 7 and 10 mmol/l. Glucose was monitored with isCGM together with intermittent POC, every 3-6 h. Median absolute relative difference (MARD) and hypoglycaemic events were evaluated. Mean glucose was compared with a historic control (n = 100) treated with multiple subcutaneously insulin injections, monitored with POC only.

RESULTS

The intervention group (isCGM/POC) had significantly lower POC glucose compared with the historic control group (8.8 ± 2.2 vs. 10.4 ± 3.4 mmol/l, p < 0.001). MARD was 17.8% (IQR 10.2-26.7). isCGM readings were higher than POC measurements in 91% of the paired cases, and isCGM did not miss any hypoglycaemic event. About 4.5% of all isCGM readings were < 3.9 mmol/l, but only six events were confirmed with POC, and none was < 3.0 mmol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid approach with isCGM/POC is a safe and effective treatment option in a non-ICU setting after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Guideline Development for Medical Device Technology: Issues for Consideration

Advances in the development of innovative medical devices and telehealth technologies create the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of diabetes care through collecting, aggregating, and interpreting relevant health data in ways that facilitate more informed decisions among all stakeholder groups. Although many medical societies publish guidelines for utilizing these technologies in clinical practice, we believe that the methodologies used for the selection and grading of the evidence should be revised. In this article, we discuss the strengths and limitations of the various types of research commonly used for evidence selection and grading and present recommendations for modifying the process to more effectively address the rapid pace of device and technology innovation and new product development.

A Consensus Statement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Inpatient Clinical Trials

Diabetes Technology Society organized an expert consensus panel to develop metrics for research in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in a hospital setting. The experts met virtually in small groups both before and after an April 13, 2023 virtual meeting of the entire panel. The goal of the panel was to develop consensus definitions in anticipation of greater use of CGMs in hospital settings in the future. Establishment of consensus definitions of inpatient analytical metrics will be easier to compare outcomes between studies. Panelists defined terms related to 10 dimensions of measurements related to the use of CGMs including (1) hospital hypoglycemia, (2) hospital hyperglycemia, (3) hospital time in range, (4) hospital glycemic variability, (5) hospital glycemia risk index, (6) accuracy of CGM devices and reference methods for CGMs in the hospital, (7) meaningful time blocks for hospital glycemic goals, (8) hospital CGM data sufficiency, (9) using CGM data for insulin dosing, and (10) miscellaneous factors. The panelists voted on 51 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 51 recommendations were classified as either strong (43) or mild (8). Additional research is needed on CGM performance in the hospital. This consensus report is intended to support that type of research intended to improve outcomes for hospitalized people with diabetes.

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

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

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

AIMS

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

SETTING

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Continuous glucose monitoring for inpatient diabetes management: an update on current evidence and practice

Over the last few years, several exciting changes in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology have expanded its use and made CGM the standard of care for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using insulin therapy. Consequently, hospitals started to notice increased use of these devices in their hospitalized patients. Furthermore during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, and several hospitals started to implement CGM protocols in their daily practice. Subsequently, a plethora of studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of CGM use in the hospital, leading to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Several studies have also suggested that CGM has the potential to become the standard of care for some hospitalized patients, overcoming the limitations of current capillary glucose testing. Albeit, there is a need for more studies and particularly regulatory approval. In this review, we provide a historical overview of the evolution of glycemic monitoring in the hospital and review the current evidence, implementation protocols, and guidance for the use of CGM in hospitalized patients.

Role of hyperglycemia in cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia could affect treatment response during cystic fibrosis (CF) exacerbations. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and associations of hyperglycemia with exacerbation outcomes. We also evaluated feasibility of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during exacerbations.

METHODS

The STOP2 study assessed efficacy and safety of different durations of intravenous antibiotics for CF exacerbations. We conducted a secondary data analysis of random glucose levels measured as part of clinical care during exacerbations. A small subset of participants also underwent CGM per research protocol. The associations between hyperglycemia, defined as random glucose ≥140 mg/dL, and changes in weight and lung function with exacerbation treatment were evaluated with linear regression after adjustment for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Glucose levels were available for 182 STOP2 participants of mean (SD) age 31.6 (10.8) years, baseline percent predicted (pp) FEV1 53.6 (22.5); 37% had CF related diabetes and 27% were on insulin. Hyperglycemia was detected in 44% of participants. Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) was 1.34% (-1.39, 4.08) (p = 0.336) for change in ppFEV1 and 0.33 kg (-0.11, 0.78) (p = 0.145) for change in weight between hyperglycemic and non-hyperglycemic groups. Ten participants not on antidiabetic agents in the 4 weeks prior to enrollment underwent CGM; mean (SD) time spent >140 mg/dL was 24.6% (12.5) with 9/10 participants spending >4.5% time >140 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperglycemia identified with random glucose is prevalent during CF exacerbations but not associated with changes in lung function or weight with exacerbation treatment. CGM is feasible and may provide a useful tool for hyperglycemia monitoring during exacerbations.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit

Traditionally, the care of critically ill patients with diabetes or stress hyperglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU) demands the use of continuous intravenous insulin (CII) therapy to achieve narrow glycemic targets. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia and to achieve glycemic targets during CII, healthcare providers (HCP) rely on hourly point-of-care (POC) arterial or capillary glucose tests obtained with glucose monitors. The burden of this approach, however, was evident during the beginning of the pandemic when the immediate reduction in close contact interactions between HCP and patients with COVID-19 was necessary to avoid potentially life-threatening exposures. Taking advantage of the advancements in current diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices integrated with digital health tools for remote monitoring, HCP implemented novel protocols in the ICU to care for patients with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia. We provide an overview of research conducted in the ICU setting with the use of initial CGM technology to current devices and summarize our recent experience in the ICU.

Accuracy and Glycemic Efficacy of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is approved for insulin dosing decisions in the ambulatory setting, but not currently for inpatients. CGM has the capacity to reduce patient-provider contact in inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), thus potentially reducing in hospital virus transmission. However, there are sparse data on the accuracy and efficacy of CGM to titrate insulin doses in inpatients.

METHODS

Under an emergency use protocol, CGM (Dexcom G6) was used alongside standard point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in patients critically ill from complications of COVID-19 requiring intravenous (IV) insulin. Glycemic control during IV insulin therapy was retrospectively assessed comparing periods with and without adjunctive CGM use. Accuracy metrics were computed and Clarke Error Grid analysis performed comparing CGM glucose values with POC measurements.

RESULTS

Twenty-four critically ill patients who met criteria for emergency use of CGM resulted in 47 333 CGM and 5677 POC glucose values. During IV insulin therapy, individuals' glycemic control improved when CGM was used (mean difference -30.7 mg/dL). Among 2194 matched CGM: POC glucose pairs, a high degree of concordance was observed with a mean absolute relative difference of 14.8% and 99.5% of CGM: POC pairs falling in Zones A and B of the Clarke Error Grid.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous glucose monitoring use in critically ill COVID-19 patients improved glycemic control during IV insulin therapy. Continuous glucose monitoring glucose data were highly concordant with POC glucose during IV insulin therapy in critically ill patients suggesting that CGM could substitute for POC measurements in inpatients thus reducing patient-provider contact and mitigating infection transmission.

Emerging Diabetes Technologies: Continuous Glucose Monitors/Artificial Pancreases

Over the past decade there have been many advances in diabetes technologies, such as continuous glucose monitors (CGM s), insulin-delivery devices, and hybrid closed loop systems . Now most CGMs (Medtronic-Guardian, Dexcom-G6, and Abbott-Libre-2) have MARD values of < 10%, in contrast to two decades ago when the MARD used to be > 20%. In addition, the majority of the new CGMs do not require calibrations, and the latest CGMs last for 10-14 days. An implantable 6-months CGM by Eversense-3 is now approved in the USA and Europe. Recently, the FDA approved Libre 3 which provides real-time glucose values every minute. Even though it is approved as an iCGM it is not interoperable with automatic-insulin-delivery (AID) systems. The newer CGMs that are likely to be launched in the next few months in the USA include the 10-11 days Dexcom G7 (60% smaller than the existing G6), and the 7-days Medtronic Guardian 4. Most of the newer CGM have several features like automatic initialization, easy insertion, predictive alarms, and alerts. It has also been noticed that an arm insertion site might have better accuracy than abdomen or other sites, like the buttock for kids. Lag time between YSI and different sensors have been reported differently, sometimes it is down to 2-3 min; however, in many instances, it is still 15-20 min, especially when the rate of change of glucose is > 2 mg/min. We believe that in the next decade there will be a significant increase in the number of people who use CGM for their day-to-day diabetes care.

Current management of diabetes patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to interact in both directions. There is mounting proof that patients with DM have a worse COVID-19 prognosis than those without it. Pharmacotherapy is also known to affect in view of the possible interplay between drugs and the pathophysiology of the above conditions in a given patient.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and its connections with diabetes mellitus. We also analyze the treatment modalities for COVID-19 and diabetes patients. The possible mechanisms of the different medications and their management limitations are also systematically reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

COVID-19 management as well as its knowledge base is changing constantly. The Pharmacotherapy and the choice of drugs also need to be specifically considered in view of the concomitant presence of these conditions in a patient. Anti-diabetic agents must be carefully evaluated in diabetic patients in view of the disease's severity, blood glucose level, appropriate treatment, and other components that could aggravate adverse events. A methodical technique is anticipated to enable the safe and rational use of drug therapy in COVID-19-positive diabetic patients to take.

Current management of diabetes patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to interact in both directions. There is mounting proof that patients with DM have a worse COVID-19 prognosis than those without it. Pharmacotherapy is also known to affect in view of the possible interplay between drugs and the pathophysiology of the above conditions in a given patient.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and its connections with diabetes mellitus. We also analyze the treatment modalities for COVID-19 and diabetes patients. The possible mechanisms of the different medications and their management limitations are also systematically reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

COVID-19 management as well as its knowledge base is changing constantly. The Pharmacotherapy and the choice of drugs also need to be specifically considered in view of the concomitant presence of these conditions in a patient. Anti-diabetic agents must be carefully evaluated in diabetic patients in view of the disease's severity, blood glucose level, appropriate treatment, and other components that could aggravate adverse events. A methodical technique is anticipated to enable the safe and rational use of drug therapy in COVID-19-positive diabetic patients to take.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: Initial Experience at a Tertiary Care Center

OBJECTIVE

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia require frequent glucose monitoring, usually performed with glucometers. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are common in the outpatient setting but not yet approved for hospital use. We evaluated CGM accuracy, safety for insulin dosing, and CGM clinical reliability in 20 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia.

METHODS

Study patients were fitted with a remotely monitored CGM. CGM values were evaluated against glucometer readings. The CGM sensor calibration was performed if necessary. CGM values were used to dose insulin, without glucometer confirmation.

RESULTS

CGM accuracy against glucometer, expressed as mean absolute relative difference (MARD), was calculated using 812 paired glucometer-CGM values. The aggregate MARD was 10.4%. For time in range and grades 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, MARD was 11.4%, 9.4%, and 9.1%, respectively, with a small variation between medical floors and intensive care units. There was no MARD correlation with mean arterial blood pressure levels, oxygen saturation, daily hemoglobin levels, and glomerular filtration rates. CGM clinical reliability was high, with 99.7% of the CGM values falling within the "safe" zones of Clarke error grid. After CGM placement, the frequency of glucometer measurements decreased from 5 to 3 and then 2 per day, reducing nurse presence in patient rooms and limiting viral exposure.

CONCLUSION

With twice daily, on-demand calibration, the inpatient CGM use was safe for insulin dosing, decreasing the frequency of glucometer fingersticks. For glucose levels >70 mg/dL, CGMs showed adequate accuracy, without interference from vital and laboratory values.

The Need for Data Standards and Implementation Policies to Integrate CGM Data into the Electronic Health Record

The current lack of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data integration into the electronic health record (EHR) is holding back the use of this wearable technology for patient-generated health data (PGHD). This failure to integrate with other healthcare data inside the EHR disrupts workflows, removes the data from critical patient context, and overall makes the CGM data less useful than it might otherwise be. Many healthcare organizations (HCOs) are either struggling with or delaying designing and implementing CGM data integrations. In this article, the current status of CGM integration is reviewed, goals for integration are proposed, and a consensus plan to engage key stakeholders to facilitate integration is presented.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States.

The Devil Is in the Details: Use, Limitations, and Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Inpatient Setting

Until recently, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems were reserved for use in the outpatient setting or for investigational purposes in hospitalized patients. However, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, use of CGM in the inpatient setting has grown rapidly. This review outlines important details related to the accuracy, limitations, and implementation of, as well as necessary staff education for, inpatient CGM use and offers a glimpse into the future of CGM in the inpatient setting.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Use and Accuracy of Inpatient CGM During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study of General Medicine and ICU Patients

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used in the outpatient setting for people with diabetes and has been limited to investigational use only for the inpatient population. In April 2020, the US FDA exercised enforcement discretion for the temporary use of inpatient CGM during the pandemic, thus hospitals were presented the opportunity to implement this technology.

METHODS

We sought to investigate the accuracy of CGM in hospitalized patients on general care floors and the intensive care unit (ICU) in attempts to decrease healthcare professional exposure to COVID-19 and ultimately improve glycemic management of patients affected by COVID-19. Point of care (POC) and laboratory (Lab) glucose values were matched with simultaneous CGM glucose values and measures of accuracy were performed to evaluate the safety and usability of CGM in this population. Our data are presented drawing a distinction between POC and Lab as reference glucose sources.

RESULTS

In 808 paired samples obtained from 28 patients (10 ICU, 18 general floor), overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for all patients using either POC or Lab as reference was 13.2%. When using POC as the reference glucose MARD was 13.9% and using Lab glucose as reference 10.9%. Using both POC and Lab reference glucose pairs the overall MARD for critical care patients was 12.1% and for general floor patients 14%.

CONCLUSION

We determined, with proper protocols and safeguards in place, use of CGM in the hospitalized patient is a reasonable alternative to standard of care to achieve the goal of reducing healthcare professional exposure. Further study is necessary to validate safety, accuracy, and efficacy of this technology. Investigation and analysis are necessary for the development of protocols to utilize CGM trend arrows, alerts, and alarms.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder. The incidence and prevalence of patients with T2DM are increasing worldwide, even reaching epidemic values in most high- and middle-income countries. T2DM could be a risk factor of developing complications in other diseases. Indeed, some studies suggest a bidirectional interaction between T2DM and COVID-19. A growing body of evidence shows that COVID-19 prognosis in individuals with T2DM is worse compared with those without. Moreover, various studies have reported the emergence of newly diagnosed patients with T2DM after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The most common treatments for T2DM may influence SARS-CoV-2 and their implication in infection is briefly discussed in this review. A better understanding of the link between TD2M and COVID-19 could proactively identify risk factors and, as a result, develop strategies to improve the prognosis for these patients.

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.

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

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

Clinical feasibility of remote intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with and without diabetes during dexamethasone therapy

The clinical utility of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Hence, we investigated the accuracy of isCGM in COVID-19 patients during dexamethasone therapy. We evaluated the accuracy of the FreeStyle Libre via smartphone isCGM device compared to point-of-care (POC) fingerstick glucose level monitoring in 16 patients with COVID-19 (10 with and 6 without diabetes, 13 men; HbA1c 6.9 ± 1.0%). Overall, isCGM correlated well with POC measurements (46.2% and 53.8% within areas A and B of the Parkes error grid, respectively). The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for isCGM compared to POC measurements was 19.4%. The MARDs were 19.8% and 19.7% for POC blood glucose measurements ranging from 70 to 180 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL, respectively. When divided according to the presence and absence of diabetes, both groups of paired glucose measurements showed a good correlation (56.3% and 43.7%, and 27.1% and 72.9% within the A and B areas in patients with and without diabetes, respectively), but the MARD was not significant but higher in patients without diabetes (16.5% and 24.2% in patients with and without diabetes). In conclusion, although isCGM may not be as accurate as traditional blood glucose monitoring, it has good reliability in COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes during dexamethasone therapy.

How use of continuous glucose monitoring can address therapeutic inertia in primary care

A significant proportion of individuals with diabetes have suboptimal glycemic management. Studies have shown that persistent hyperglycemia significantly increases the risks for both acute and long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. A key contributor to suboptimal glycemic management is therapeutic inertia in which clinicians delay intensifying therapy when patients are not meeting their glycemic goals. During the past five years, an increasing number of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) have adopted use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for daily measurement of glucose levels. As demonstrated in numerous clinical trials and real-world observational studies, use of CGM improves glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and reduces the occurrence and severity of hypoglycemia. However, for primary care clinicians who are unfamiliar with using CGM, integrating this technology into clinical practice can be daunting. In this article, we discuss the benefits and rationale for using CGM compared with traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM), review the evidence supporting the clinical value of CGM in patients with T1D and T2D, and describe how use of CGM in primary care can facilitate appropriate and more timely therapy adjustments.

Effect of Ethanol Consumption on the Accuracy of a Glucose Oxidase-Based Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes

Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have improved the management of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), with glucose oxidase (GOx)-based sensors being the most used. However, they are potentially subject to both electrochemical and enzymatic interferences, including those related to changes of pH. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of ethanol, given as beer along with a mixed meal, on the accuracy of a commercial GOx-CGM. Data from 12 T1D participants in a randomized crossover trial to evaluate the effect of meal composition and alcohol consumption on postprandial glucose concentration were used. Absolute error (AE) and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated. The differences between the alcohol and nonalcohol scenarios were assessed using the Mann−Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The AE in the alcohol study was low, but significantly greater as compared to the study without alcohol (p-value = 0.0418). The MARD was numerically but not significantly greater. However, both variables were greater at pH < 7.36 and significantly affected by time only in the alcohol arm. In T1D, alcohol consumption affects the accuracy of a GOx-CGM. This effect could be at least partially related to the ethanol-induced changes in pH.

FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system for people with type 1 diabetes in the UK: a budget impact analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to estimate the budget impact of increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A budget impact model was developed, applying real-world data collected in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) FreeStyle Libre Nationwide Audit. Costs of diabetes glucose monitoring in a T1DM population (n=1790) using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or the FreeStyle Libre system were compared with a scenario with increased use of the FreeStyle Libre system.

RESULTS

The ABCD audit demonstrates FreeStyle Libre system use reduces diabetes-related resource utilization. The cost analysis found that higher acquisition costs are offset by healthcare costs avoided (difference £168 per patient per year (PPPY)). Total costs were £1116 PPPY with FreeStyle Libre system compared with £948 PPPY with SMBG. In an average-sized UK local health economy, increasing FreeStyle Libre system uptake from 30% to 50% increased costs by 3.4% (£1 787 345-£1 847 618) and when increased to 70% increased by a further 3.3%.

CONCLUSION

Increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre system in the T1DM population marginally increases the cost to UK health economies and offers many system benefits.

Remote Pharmacist-Assisted Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Outcomes in Patients With Poorly Controlled Diabetes: A Retrospective Case Series

This article reports on a retrospective case series evaluating glycemic outcomes using a flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system in pharmacist-managed diabetes cases. The flash CGM system was used during initial assessment of patients' diabetes control and then continued throughout the intervention to ensure the safety and efficacy of the glycemic interventions. The Cloud-based CGM software was used to monitor patients remotely and assess their glycemic metrics. Action plans were created to address areas of most pressing concern, ensuring reduction or elimination of hypoglycemia, correction of hyperglycemia, and minimization of glycemic variability. In these complex cases, use of the flash CGM system in conjunction with lifestyle and medication interventions safely and effectively improved diabetes management and achieved targeted glucose outcomes.

Diabetes and COVID-19; A Bidirectional Interplay

There seems to be a bidirectional interplay between Diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). On the one hand, people with diabetes are at higher risk of fatal or critical care unit-treated COVID-19 as well as COVID-19 related health complications compared to individuals without diabetes. On the other hand, clinical data so far suggest that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may result in metabolic dysregulation and in impaired glucose homeostasis. In addition, emerging data on new onset DM in previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 patients, reinforce the hypothesis of a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 on glucose metabolism. Attempting to find the culprit, we currently know that the pancreas and the endothelium have been found to express Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, the main binding site of the virus. To move from bench to bedside, understanding the effects of COVID-19 on metabolism and glucose homeostasis is crucial to prevent and manage complications related to COVID-19 and support recovering patients. In this article we review the potential underlying pathophysiological mechanisms between COVID-19 and glucose dysregulation as well as the effects of antidiabetic treatment in patients with diabetes and COVID-19.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Practical implementation of remote continuous glucose monitoring in hospitalized patients with diabetes

Purpose

Inpatient diabetes management involves frequent assessment of glucose levels for treatment decisions. Here we describe a program for inpatient real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) at a community hospital and the accuracy of rtCGM-based glucose estimates.

Methods

Adult inpatients with preexisting diabetes managed with intensive insulin therapy and a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were monitored via rtCGM for safety. An rtCGM system transmitted glucose concentration and trending information at 5-minute intervals to nearby smartphones, which relayed the data to a centralized monitoring station. Hypoglycemia alerts were triggered by rtCGM values of ≤85 mg/dL, but rtCGM data were otherwise not used in management decisions; insulin dosing adjustments were based on blood glucose values measured via fingerstick blood sampling. Accuracy was evaluated retrospectively by comparing rtCGM values to contemporaneous point-of-care (POC) blood glucose values.

Results

A total of 238 pairs of rtCGM and POC data points from 10 patients showed an overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 10.3%. Clarke error grid analysis showed 99.2% of points in the clinically acceptable range, and surveillance error grid analysis showed 89.1% of points in the lowest risk category. It was determined that for 25% of the rtCGM values, discordances in rtCGM and POC values would likely have resulted in different insulin doses. Insulin dose recommendations based on rtCGM values differed by 1 to 3 units from POC-based recommendations.

Conclusion

rtCGM for inpatient diabetes monitoring is feasible. Evaluation of individual rtCGM-POC paired values suggested that using rtCGM data for management decisions poses minimal risks to patients. Further studies to establish the safety and cost implications of using rtCGM data for inpatient diabetes management decisions are warranted.

Consumer Wearables for Patient Monitoring in Otolaryngology: A State of the Art Review

OBJECTIVE

Consumer wearables, such as the Apple Watch or Fitbit devices, have become increasingly commonplace over the past decade. The application of these devices to health care remains an area of significant yet ill-defined promise. This review aims to identify the potential role of consumer wearables for the monitoring of otolaryngology patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed.

REVIEW METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to identify the use of consumer wearables for the assessment of clinical outcomes relevant to otolaryngology. Articles were included if they described the use of wearables that were designed for continuous wear and were available for consumer purchase in the United States. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized into a final narrative review.

CONCLUSIONS

In the perioperative setting, consumer wearables could facilitate prehabilitation before major surgery and prediction of clinical outcomes. The use of consumer wearables in the inpatient setting could allow for early recognition of parameters suggestive of poor or declining health. The real-time feedback provided by these devices in the remote setting could be incorporated into behavioral interventions to promote patients' engagement with healthy behaviors. Various concerns surrounding the privacy, ownership, and validity of wearable-derived data must be addressed before their widespread adoption in health care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Understanding how to leverage the wealth of biometric data collected by consumer wearables to improve health outcomes will become a high-impact area of research and clinical care. Well-designed comparative studies that elucidate the value and clinical applicability of these data are needed.

COVID-19 and Diabetes

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

Hypoglycemia symptoms are reduced in hospitalized patients with diabetes

AIMS

Hospitalized patients with diabetes are have an impaired ability to detect hypoglycemia events. The purpose of this study was to compare hypoglycemia symptom scores (HSS) in hospitalized patients with diabetes after a documented blood glucose (BG) <70mg/dl with recalled HSS with outpatient hypoglycemia events.

METHODS

Non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes grouped as symptomatic (n=23) or asymptomatic (n=32) at time of index hypoglycemia completed a standardized HSS-Questionnaires (HSS-Q) related to the inpatient event and to recall of symptoms with outpatient hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

After controlling for BG at time of index hypoglycemia (49.8±11.4 vs. 57.4±6.8mg/dl, p=0.02), symptomatic patients reported higher HSS than asymptomatic patients with the inpatient event (11.6±7.3 vs. 1.5±3.4, p<0.001) and in the outpatient setting (13.9±8.6 vs. 10.1±10.6, p<0.01). Recurrent hypoglycemia was more frequent in asymptomatic patients (13% vs. 44%, p=0.015) during the hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients had lower inpatient and outpatient HSS and more frequent recurrent hypoglycemia events. These results suggest modification of glycemic management strategies in high risk patients to reduce risk for hypoglycemia events.

Remote patient monitoring after cardiac surgery: The utility of a novel telemedicine system

Objective

We examined cardiac surgery patients who underwent monitoring of postoperative vital parameters using medical monitoring devices which transferred data to a mobile application and a web‐based software.

Methods

From November 2017 to November 2020, a total of 2340 patients were enrolled in the remote patient monitoring system after undergoing cardiac surgery. The medical devices recorded vital parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, saturation, body temperature, blood glucose, and electrocardiography were measured via the Health Monitor DakikApp and Holter ECG DakikApp devices which reported data to web‐based software and a mobile application (DakikApp Mobile Systems, Remscheid, Germany). During the follow‐up period, patients were contacted daily through text and voice messages, and video conferences. Remote Medical Evaluations (RMEs) concerning patients' medical states were performed. Medication reminders, daily treatment were communicated to the patients with the DakikApp Mobile Systems Software.

Results

During a mean follow‐up period of 78.9 ± 107.1 (10–395) days, a total of 135,786 patient contacts were recorded (782 video conferences, 2805 voice messaging, and 132,199 text correspondence). The number of RMEs handled by the Telemedicine Team was 79,560. A total of 105,335 vital parameter measurements were performed and 5024 hospital application requests (6.3% per RME) were addressed successfully and hospitalization was avoided. A total of 144 (6.1%) potentially life‐threatening complications were found to have been diagnosed early using the Telemedicine System.

Conclusion

Remote Patient Monitoring Systems combined with professional medical devices are feasible, effective, and safe for the purpose of improving postoperative outcomes.

Insurance Coverage for Emerging Diabetes Technologies: Payers' Perspective

Advances in glucose monitoring and insulin delivery technologies have led to the development of innovative self-management tools, such as continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems, and smart connected insulin pens. Although the clinical advantages of today's emerging diabetes technologies are well documented, the cost of integrating these tools into clinical practice must be considered to sustain the financial viability of both public and private insurers. Most clinicians are unfamiliar with the process the commercial insurers follow when making these decisions. This article reviews the key factors the insurers consider when determining eligibility criteria.

Advances in Pharmacotherapeutics, Metabolic Surgery, and Technology for Diabetes

Remarkable advances in diabetes management have occurred since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago. Advances across a therapeutic spectrum, including pharmacotherapy, metabolic surgery, and diabetes technology, offer superior treatment options for diabetes management. New medication classes (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogs and SGLT-2 inhibitors) have demonstrated cardiorenal benefits beyond glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, while evolving metabolic surgical interventions also help patients achieve diabetes remission. The use of artificial pancreas systems has shown consistent improvement in glycemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus. It is time for policy changes to expand access to such advantageous therapies.

Trending Technology of Glucose Monitoring during COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges in Personalized Healthcare

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to spread rapidly, and patients with diabetes are at risk of experiencing rapid progression and poor prognosis for appropriate treatment. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which includes accurately tracking fluctuations in glucose levels without raising the risk of coronavirus exposure, becomes an important strategy for the self-management of diabetes during this pandemic, efficiently contributing to the diabetes care and the fight against COVID-19. Despite being less accurate than direct blood glucose monitoring, wearable noninvasive systems can encourage patient adherence by guaranteeing reliable results through high correlation between blood glucose levels and glucose concentrations in various other biofluids. This review highlights the trending technologies of glucose sensors during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020) that have been developed to make a significant contribution to effective management of diabetes and prevention of coronavirus spread, from off-body systems to wearable on-body CGM devices, including nanostructure and sensor performance in various biofluids. The advantages and disadvantages of various human biofluids for use in glucose sensors are also discussed. Furthermore, the challenges faced by wearable CGM sensors with respect to personalized healthcare during and after the pandemic are deliberated to emphasize the potential future directions of CGM devices for diabetes management.