Comparison of the FreeStyle Libre Pro Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System and Point-of-Care Capillary Glucose Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen

Accuracy of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitor in Pediatric Diabetic Ketoacidosis Admissions

Objective: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are integral in the outpatient care of people with type 1 diabetes, although they lack inpatient labeling. Food and Drug Administration began allowing inpatient use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with some accuracy data now available, primarily from adult hospitals. Pediatric inpatient data remain limited, particularly during diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) admissions and for patients receiving intravenous (IV) insulin. Design and Methods: This retrospective chart review compared point-of-care glucose values to personal Dexcom G6 sensor data during pediatric hospitalizations. Accuracy was assessed using mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Clarke Error Grids, and the percentage of values within 15/20/30% if glucose value >100 mg/dL and 15/20/30 mg/dL if glucose value ≤100 mg/dL. Results: Matched paired glucose values (N = 612) from 36 patients (median age 14 years, 58.3% non-Hispanic White, 47.2% male) and 42 inpatient encounters were included in this subanalysis of DKA admissions. The MARDs for DKA and non-DKA admissions (N = 503) were 11.8% and 11.7%, with 97.6% and 98.6% of pairs falling within A and B zones of the Clarke Error Grid, respectively. Severe DKA admissions (pH <7.15 and/or bicarbonate <5 mmol/L) had a MARD of 8.9% compared to 14.3% for nonsevere DKA admissions. The MARD during administration of IV insulin (N = 266) was 13.4%. Conclusions: CGM accuracy is similar between DKA and non-DKA admissions and is maintained in severe DKA and during IV insulin administration, suggesting potential usability in pediatric hospitalizations. Further study on the feasibility of implementation of CGM in the hospital is needed.

Insertable Glucose Sensor Using a Compact and Cost-Effective Phosphorescence Lifetime Imager and Machine Learning

Optical continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are emerging for personalized glucose management owing to their lower cost and prolonged durability compared to conventional electrochemical CGMs. Here, we report a computational CGM system, which integrates a biocompatible phosphorescence-based insertable biosensor and a custom-designed phosphorescence lifetime imager (PLI). This compact and cost-effective PLI is designed to capture phosphorescence lifetime images of an insertable sensor through the skin, where the lifetime of the emitted phosphorescence signal is modulated by the local concentration of glucose. Because this phosphorescence signal has a very long lifetime compared to tissue autofluorescence or excitation leakage processes, it completely bypasses these noise sources by measuring the sensor emission over several tens of microseconds after the excitation light is turned off. The lifetime images acquired through the skin are processed by neural network-based models for misalignment-tolerant inference of glucose levels, accurately revealing normal, low (hypoglycemia) and high (hyperglycemia) concentration ranges. Using a 1 mm thick skin phantom mimicking the optical properties of human skin, we performed in vitro testing of the PLI using glucose-spiked samples, yielding 88.8% inference accuracy, also showing resilience to random and unknown misalignments within a lateral distance of ∼4.7 mm with respect to the position of the insertable sensor underneath the skin phantom. Furthermore, the PLI accurately identified larger lateral misalignments beyond 5 mm, prompting user intervention for realignment. The misalignment-resilient glucose concentration inference capability of this compact and cost-effective PLI makes it an appealing wearable diagnostics tool for real-time tracking of glucose and other biomarkers.

Oral Anaerobutyricum soehngenii augments glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the impact of 14-day Anaerobutyricum soehngenii L2-7 supplementation on postprandial glucose levels in 25 White Dutch males with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on stable metformin therapy. The primary endpoint was the effect of A. soehngenii versus placebo on glucose excursions and variability as determined by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary endpoints were changes in ambulatory 24-h blood pressure, incretins, circulating metabolites and excursions of plasma short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and bile acids upon a standardized meal. Results showed that A. soehngenii supplementation for 14 days significantly improved glycemic variability and mean arterial blood pressure, without notable changes in SCFAs, bile acids, incretin levels, or anthropometric parameters as compared to placebo-treated controls. Although well-tolerated and effective in improving glycemic control in the intervention group, further research in larger and more diverse populations is needed to generalize these findings.

Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital setting: an observational study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycaemic outcomes in the outpatient setting; however, there are limited data regarding CGM accuracy in hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, observational study comparing CGM data from blinded Dexcom G6 Pro sensors with reference point of care and laboratory glucose measurements during participants' hospitalisations. Key accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values within ±20% of reference glucose values >5.6 mmol/l or within ±1.1 mmol/l of reference glucose values ≤5.6 mmol/l (%20/20), the mean and median absolute relative difference between CGM and reference value (MARD and median ARD, respectively) and Clarke error grid analysis (CEGA). A retrospective calibration scheme was used to determine whether calibration improved sensor accuracy. Multivariable regression models and subgroup analyses were used to determine the impact of clinical characteristics on accuracy assessments.

RESULTS

A total of 326 adults hospitalised on 19 medical or surgical non-intensive care hospital floors were enrolled, providing 6648 matched glucose pairs. The %20/20 was 59.5%, the MARD was 19.2% and the median ARD was 16.8%. CEGA showed that 98.2% of values were in zone A (clinically accurate) and zone B (benign). Subgroups with lower accuracy metrics included those with severe anaemia, renal dysfunction and oedema. Application of a once-daily morning calibration schedule improved accuracy (MARD 11.4%).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The CGM accuracy when used in hospital may be lower than that reported in the outpatient setting, but this may be improved with appropriate patient selection and daily calibration. Further research is needed to understand the role of CGM in inpatient settings.

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.

How Would You Treat This Inpatient With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus? Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presents unique challenges. Two recently released guidelines, one from the American Diabetes Association and the other from the Endocrine Society, provide useful recommendations and evidence review to inform the care of medical inpatients with T2DM. These guidelines mostly agree, although there are slight differences in their recommendations. In these rounds, 2 expert diabetologists discuss their approach to inpatient management of T2DM, specifically regarding inpatient glycemic goals on the medical ward, the use of noninsulin antihyperglycemic medications, and patient safety strategies for patients receiving long-acting insulin. They conclude with recommendations for Mr. D, a real patient with T2DM admitted with a recurrent foot infection.

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Using the Dexcom G6 in Cardiac Surgery During the Postoperative Period

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac surgery is associated with hyperglycemia, which in turn is associated with adverse postsurgical outcomes such as wound infections, acute renal failure, and mortality. This pilot study seeks to determine if Dexcom G6Pro continuous glucose monitor (Dexcom G6Pro CGM) is accurate during the postoperative cardiac surgery period when fluid shifts, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and vasoactive medications are frequently encountered, compared to standard glucose monitoring techniques.

METHODS

This study received institutional review board approval. In this prospective study, correlation between clinical and Dexcom glucose readings was evaluated. Clinical glucose (blood gas, metabolic panel, and point of care) data set included 1428 readings from 29 patients, while the Dexcom G6Pro CGM data included 45 645 data points following placement to upper arm. Additionally, average clinical measurements of day and overnight temperatures and hemodynamics were evaluated. Clinical and Dexcom data were restricted to being at least 1 hour after prior clinical reading Matching Dexcom G6Pro CGM data were required within 5 minutes of clinical measure. Data included only if taken at least 2 hours after Dexcom G6Pro CGM insertion (warm-up time) and analyzed only following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Finally, a data set excluding the first 24 hours after ICU admission was created to explore stability of the device. Patients remained on Dexcom G6Pro CGM until discharge or 10 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

The population was 71% male, 14% with known diabetes; 66% required intravenous insulin infusion. The Clarke error grid plot of all measures post-ICU admission showed 53.5% in zone A, 45.9% in zone B, and 0.6% (n = 5) in zones D or E. The restricted dataset that excluded the first 24 hours post-ICU admission showed 55.9% in zone A, 43.9% in zone B, and 0.2% in zone D. Mean absolute relative difference between clinical and Dexcom G6Pro CGM measures was 20.6% and 21.6% in the entire post-ICU admission data set, and the data set excluding the first 24 hours after ICU admission, respectively. In the subanalysis of the 12 patients who did not have more than a 5-minute tap in the operating room, a consensus error grid, demonstrated that after ICU admission, percentage in zone A was 53.9%, zone B 45.4%, and zone C 0.7%. Similar percentages were obtained removing the first 24 hours post-ICU admission. These numbers are very similar to the entire cohort. A consensus error grid created post-ICU admission demonstrated: (zone A) 54%, (zone B) 45%, (zone C) 0.9%, and the following for the dataset created excluding the first 24 hours: (zone A) 56%, (zone B) 44%, (zone C) 0.4%, which demonstrated very close agreement with the original Clarke error grid. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 100% of Dexcom G6Pro CGM and clinical data matching points fell within areas considered as giving clinically correct decisions (zone A) and clinically uncritical decisions (zone B). However, the relatively high mean absolute relative difference precludes its use for both monitoring and treatment in the clinical context. As technology evolves, interstitial glucose monitoring may become an important tool to limit iatrogenic anemia and mitigate glycemic fluctuations.

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.

Type 1 Diabetes in Singapore: Self-Care Challenges, Diabetes Technology Awareness, Current Use, and Satisfaction, an Online Survey

Introduction

To describe the self-care challenges, diabetes technology awareness, current use, and satisfaction among adults with type 1 diabetes and parents of children with type 1 diabetes in Singapore.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was administered between November 2020 and October 2021. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation) or count (percentages). Comparisons between groups were done using the independent samples T-test.

Results

251 people (176 adults, 75 parents) participated. The most challenging self-care burdens were carbohydrate counting (24.4%) among adults and insulin dose calculations (28%) among parents. Nocturnal awakenings for diabetes care of their child were a common event (25.3%). Despite high awareness about continuous glucose monitoring devices (77.8% adults, 78.7% parents) the use (24.9% adults, 55% children) remained low. Both adults and parents of children with type 1 diabetes found continuous glucose monitoring to be liberating and less restrictive. Despite overall low insulin pump use (23.9% adults, 29.3% children); satisfaction scores were higher among insulin pump users than insulin pen users (P = 0.02).

Conclusion

Carbohydrate counting and insulin dose calculations were the most challenging self-care tasks among people with type 1 diabetes in Singapore. Diabetes technology use was relatively low in Singapore. Continuous glucose monitoring and Insulin pump users found them to be beneficial.

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.

The Performance of Freestyle Libre Pro Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Hospitalized Patients Treated with an Intravenous Insulin Infusion for Acute Prednisolone-Induced Hyperglycemia

Few studies have evaluated the performance of flash glucose monitoring in hospitalized patients requiring intravenous insulin therapy. In this prospective study, an intravenous insulin infusion was adjusted hourly using flash glucose monitoring in hospitalized adults with prednisolone-associated hyperglycemia. The difference in paired point of care (POC) and flash glucose measurements and risk of severe hyper- or hypoglycemia (assessed by Clarke error grid analysis) were assessed. Glucose concentration measured by flash glucose monitoring was lower than POC glucose (mean difference 1.5 mmol/L [27 mg/dL], p < 0.001); however, mean POC glucose was within the target range (9.1 ± 4.1 mmol/L [164 ± 72 mg/dL]) and 97.8% of glucose measurements were within Zone A and B on error grid analysis. Flash glucose monitoring could be used in combination with POC glucose monitoring to minimize the frequency of finger prick blood glucose levels in hospitalized patients prescribed an intravenous insulin infusion.

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during hospitalization: associated factors and prognostic value

BACKGROUND

The risk factors for hypoglycemia during hospital admission and its consequences in patients with diabetes are not entirely known. The present study aimed to investigate the risk factors for hypoglycemia, as well as the potential implications of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted to the hospital.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 324 patients (214 [66.0%] men; median age 70 years, range 34-95 years) with type 2 diabetes admitted to a university hospital who were consulted the Endocrinology Department for glycemic control during a 12-month period. We investigated the potential role of demographic factors, metabolic factors, therapy, and comorbidities on the development of in-hospital hypoglycemia. We explored the prognostic value of hypoglycemia on mortality (both in-hospital and in the long-term), hospital readmission in the following year, and metabolic control (HbA1c value) after discharge (median follow-up, 886 days; range 19-1255 days).

RESULTS

Hypoglycemia occurred in 154 (47.5%) patients during their hospitalization and was associated with advanced age, previous insulin therapy, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower body mass index and lower baseline HbA1c values. Hypoglycemia was associated with greater in-hospital and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher readmission rates, and poorer metabolic control after discharge. These negative consequences of hypoglycemia were more frequent in patients with severe (≤ 55 mg/dL) hypoglycemia and in patients who had hypoglycemia during a greater percentage of hospitalization days.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia during hospital admission is a marker of a poor prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.

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.

Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitors for Inpatient Diabetes Management

INTRODUCTION

In hospitalized patients, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may improve glycemic control, prevent hypoglycemic events, and reduce staff workload compared with point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose monitoring.

METHODS

To evaluate CGM accuracy and safety of use in the inpatient setting, two versions of CGM sensors were placed on 43 and 34 adult patients with diabetes admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) medical wards, respectively. CGM accuracy relative to POC and safety of use were measured by calculating mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and by Clarke Error Grid (CEG) analysis.

RESULTS

CGM version 2 had improved accuracy compared with CGM version 1 with MARD 17.7 compared with 21.4%. CGM accuracy did not change with POC value or with time of sensor wear. On CEG, 98.8% of paired values fell within acceptable zones A and B.

CONCLUSION

Despite reduced accuracy compared with the outpatient setting, both versions of CGMs had acceptable safety profiles in the inpatient setting.

Expert Recommendations for Using Time-in-Range and Other Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics to Achieve Patient-Centered Glycemic Control in People With Diabetes

New metrics for assessing glycemic control beyond HbA1c have recently emerged due to the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in diabetes clinical practice. Among them, time in range (TIR) has appeared as a simple and intuitive metric that correlates inversely with HbA1c and has also been newly linked to the risk of long-term diabetes complications. The International Consensus on Time in Range established a series of target glucose ranges (TIR, time below range and time above range) and recommendations for time spent within these ranges for different diabetes populations. These parameters should be evaluated together with the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP). Using standardized visual reporting may help people with diabetes and healthcare professionals in the evaluation of glucose control in frequent clinical situations. The objective of the present review is to provide practical insights to quick interpretation of patient-centered metrics based on flash glucose monitoring data, as well as showing some visual examples of common clinical situations and giving practical recommendations for their management.

Hypoglycemia measured by flash glucose monitoring system predicts liver-related events in chronic liver disease patients

Impaired glucose tolerance, glucose fluctuations, and hypoglycemia have been observed in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). The flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system, which recognises continuous and dynamic glucose changes in real time, is used in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to examine the association between glucose fluctuations and hypoglycemia, as measured by the FGM system, and liver-related events. Seventy-two patients with CLD and type 2 DM who had their blood glucose measured using Freestyle Libre Pro between April 2017 and July 2018 at our institution were enrolled in this retrospective study. We assessed the results of the FGM system measurements and liver-related events, as defined by gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, ascites, encephalopathy, and liver-related death. The standard deviation (SD) of mean glucose as measured by the FGM system was 41.55 mg/dl, and hypoglycemia was observed in 48.6% (35/72) of the patients. Liver-related event-free survival was not significant when stratified based on SD; however, the event-free survival was significantly lower when stratified by hypoglycemia (p = 0.007). In a multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, Child-Pugh class B [Hazards ratio (HR) 2.347 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.042-5.283), p = 0.039] and hypoglycemia [HR 2.279 (95% CI: 1.064-4.881), p = 0.034] were identified as factors contributing to event-free survival. Hypoglycemia, as determined by the FGM system, was identified as a significant factor that was closely associated with liver-related events. In addition to measuring glucose levels, the FGM system is useful in predicting the occurrence of liver-related events.

Wearable non-invasive glucose sensors based on metallic nanomaterials

The development of wearable non-invasive glucose sensors provides a convenient technical means to monitor the glucose concentration of diabetes patients without discomfortability and risk of infection. Apart from enzymes as typical catalytic materials, the active catalytic materials of the glucose sensor are mainly composed of polymers, metals, alloys, metal compounds, and various metals that can undergo catalytic oxidation with glucose. Among them, metallic nanomaterials are the optimal materials applied in the field of wearable non-invasive glucose sensing due to good biocompatibility, large specific surface area, high catalytic activity, and strong adsorption capacity. This review summarizes the metallic nanomaterials used in wearable non-invasive glucose sensors including zero-dimensional (0D), one-dimensional (1D), and two-dimensional (2D) monometallic nanomaterials, bimetallic nanomaterials, metal oxide nanomaterials, etc. Besides, the applications of wearable non-invasive biosensors based on these metallic nanomaterials towards glucose detection are summarized in detail and the development trend of the wearable non-invasive glucose sensors based on metallic nanomaterials is also outlook.

Nursing Perspectives on the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid implementation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although rarely reported, perceptions from nursing staff who used the systems are critical for successful implementation and future expanded use of CGM in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

A 22-item survey focused on CGM use was distributed to ICU nurses at two large academic medical centers in the United States in 2022. Both institutions initiated inpatient CGM in the spring of 2020 using the same CGM+point of care (POC) hybrid protocol. The survey employed a 1- to 5-point Likert scale regarding CGM sensor insertion, accuracy, acceptability, usability, training, and perceptions on workload.

RESULTS

Of the 71 surveys completed, 68 (96%) nurses reported they cared for an ICU patient on CGM and 53% reported they had independently performed CGM sensor insertion. The ICU nurses overwhelmingly reported that CGM was accurate, reduced their workload, provided safer patient care, and was preferred over POC glucose testing alone. Interestingly, nearly half of nurses (49%) reported that they considered trend arrows in dosing decisions although trends were not included in the CGM+POC hybrid protocol. Nurses received training through multiple modalities, with the majority (80%) of nurses reporting that CGM training was sufficient and prepared them for its use.

CONCLUSION

These results confirm nursing acceptance and preference for CGM use within a hybrid glucose monitoring protocol in the ICU setting. These data lay a blueprint for successful implementation and training strategies for future widespread use.

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.

Comparison of Accuracy of Freestyle Libre Pro and Medtronic iPro2 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Pregnancy

There are limited data on head-to-head performance of Freestyle Libre Pro (FSL-Pro) and blinded Medtronic iPro2 CGMS in pregnancy. In this prospective observational study, women with hyperglycemia in pregnancy (n=42) underwent simultaneous FSL-Pro and Medtronic iPro2 sensor insertion and SMBG using Contour Plus meter (reference). The overall MARD for iPro2 and FSL-Pro systems were 8.0 ± 9.2% and 19.0 ± 12.8%, respectively. At hypoglycemic range, both sensors performed less accurately (MARD: 18.1% and 16.8%, respectively), while iPro2 showed higher accuracy at euglycemic (8.2% and 19.3%, respectively) and hyperglycemic (6.8% and 18.0%, respectively) ranges. On Bland-Altman analysis, iPro2 and FSL-Pro underestimated glucose by 0.01 and 1.09 mmol/L, respectively. The ISO criteria were fulfilled for 83.4% and 36.2% of all values, respectively. To conclude, iPro2 was more accurate, however, both sensors demonstrated inaccuracy at hypoglycemic range, highlighting the need for refinements in the current generation of sensors to address this problem.

CGMap: Characterizing continuous glucose monitor data in thousands of non-diabetic individuals

Despite its rising prevalence, diabetes diagnosis still relies on measures from blood tests. Technological advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices introduce a potential tool to expand our understanding of glucose control and variability in people with and without diabetes. Yet CGM data have not been characterized in large-scale healthy cohorts, creating a lack of reference for CGM data research. Here we present CGMap, a characterization of CGM data collected from over 7,000 non-diabetic individuals, aged 40-70 years, between 2019 and 2022. We provide reference values of key CGM-derived clinical measures that can serve as a tool for future CGM research. We further explored the relationship between CGM-derived measures and diabetes-related clinical parameters, uncovering several significant relationships, including associations of mean blood glucose with measures from fundus imaging and sleep monitoring. These findings offer novel research directions for understanding the influence of glucose levels on various aspects of human health.

Glycemic control in people with diabetes treated with cancer chemotherapy: contribution of continuous glucose monitoring

AIMS

The aim of our study was to assess, with Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM), exhaustive information on the glucose profile in people with diabetes starting chemotherapy. We also evaluated the adaptation of glucose-lowering drugs following analysis of CGM recordings.

METHODS

Eighty-five people with diabetes starting chemotherapy were included in the ONCODIAB study. A CGM was worn for up to fourteen days in blinded mode before and after the diabetologist's intervention to evaluate the impact of modifying the glucose-lowering drugs.

RESULTS

Time spent in range was 67.2 ± 24.2%. Time below the target glucose range (TBR) (< 70 mg/dl) was 8.9% in all the study population. TBR was significantly higher in patients treated with at least one drug due to the risk of hypoglycemia compared to the others (11.5% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.009). Sixty-five patients had available sensor data for the two recordings. Forty-one patients (51.9%) saw a decrease in their antidiabetic treatment after the diabetologist's intervention guided by the first CGM recording. We observed a significant reduction in the time spent below the target glucose range (70-55 mg/dl) between the two CGM recordings (10.3 ± 14.6% vs. 6.3 ± 9.4%, p = 0.016 and 3.8 ± 8.4% vs. 1.2 ± 2.9%, p = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CGM use in blinded mode could be an interesting tool to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in people with diabetes starting chemotherapy. Our findings fully support the recommendation that assessing hypoglycemia risk should be mandatory in patients with diabetes before starting chemotherapy.

Reliability of Inpatient CGM: Comparison to Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Gaps in our knowledge of managing inpatient dysglycaemia and diabetes in non-critically ill adults: A call for further research

AIMS

To describe the gaps in knowledge for the care of people in the hospital who have dysglycaemia or diabetes.

METHODS

A review of the current literature and the authors' knowledge of the subject.

RESULTS

Recent data has suggested that the prevalence of hospitalised people with diabetes is approximately three times the prevalence in the general population and is growing annually. A wealth of observational data over the last 4 decades has shown that people with hyperglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia or diabetes, all experience more harm whilst in the hospital than those who do not have the condition. This often equates to a longer length of stay and thus higher costs. To date, the proportion of federal funding aimed at addressing the harms that people with dysglycaemia experience in hospitals has been very small compared to outpatient studies. National organisations, such as the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care, the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society have produced guidelines or consensus statements on the management of various aspects of inpatient care. However, whilst a lot of these have been based on evidence, much remains based on expert opinion and thus low-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that inpatient diabetes is an underfunded and under-researched area.

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

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

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

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2023)]

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

Attitudes and Behaviors with Diabetes Technology Use in the Hospital: Multicenter Survey Study in the United States

Objective: To assess the attitudes, behaviors, and barriers with diabetes technology use in the general medicine hospital wards. Research Design and Methods: The authors developed a nonincentivized web-based anonymous survey that captured demographic and practice data regarding continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use in the hospital. Setting: Four large hospital systems in the United States. Results: Among 128 survey respondents, 76%, 10%, and 6% were hospitalists, advanced practice providers, and primary care physicians, respectively. The majority of respondents rated the treatment of inpatient hyperglycemia (96%) and the continuation of CSII during the hospital stay (93%) "important." While most respondents (64%) acknowledged knowing the existence of their institution's policies for CSII use, only 84% of those respondents felt somewhat to very familiar with the policy. The most common barrier to CSII use in the inpatient setting was lack of practitioner (70%) and nursing (67%) knowledge of using the device. With regard to CGM use in the hospital, a minority (28%) of respondents were aware of their institution's CGM policies. Less than half of the providers, 43.8%, stated that, when admitting a patient, they reviewed CGM data to guide insulin dosing. Conclusions: In this US multicenter survey, we found that most inpatient practitioners valued glycemic control, but many were not familiar with institutional policies, had lack of knowledge with CSII, and were not reviewing CGM data.

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

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

[Smart skin-A new technology in the area of digital dermatology]

Numerous developments in the field of digital medicine have helped to improve the treatment and management of diseases. Smart skin is one promising technology. Through sensors that are attached to the skin, a wide variety of physiological parameters can be measured, e.g., concentration of hormones, presence of inflammation markers, or the glucose level. As this technology can be applied to different parts of the body, information about various organ systems can be obtained. In the case of diabetes, research is already very advanced due to its endemic relevance and the need for long-term treatment. For example, invasive blood measurement can be replaced by implantable tattoos which react to a change in the glucose level by changing its color. In the context of type 1 diabetes, a closed-loop control circuit can be created with so-called microneedling, which results in independent insulin delivery when blood glucose levels are too high. Moreover, there are also smart skin innovations for the management of chronic wounds. With the continuous measurement of physiological indicators such as pH, temperature, or bacterial milieu, the condition of the wound can be observed. The basic principles of the smart skin technology can be transferred into many areas in the field of dermatological care and, therefore, also represent a relevant aspect for dermatologists in the care of their patients. Continuous developments in the field of smart skin technologies show high potential for further research in a wide range of specialties with the aim to facilitate everyday clinical life for patients and physicians.

The Effectiveness of Insulin Pump Therapy Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Children With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in a Specialized Center in Riyadh

Objectives

Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) in achieving glycemic control in youths with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

Retrospective cohort study including 2 matched groups of youths with T1DM treated by CSII or MDI in a tertiary specialized children's hospital in Saudi Arabia. Children and adolescents aged up to 18 years, diagnosed with T1DM and using CSII or MDI, from the period 2016 to 2018. Patients on MDI were newly-diagnosed patients with T1DM who had the disease for only 1 year duration; all CSII patients had at least 1 to 2 years of T1DM but who had just started on pumps in the past 3 months. We excluded patients with other autoimmune diseases, non-ambulatory patients and those admitted to hospital for non-diabetes reasons. Primary outcome was HbA1c at 1, 2, and 3 years, with weight gain as a secondary outcome. Ambulatory glycemic profile was analyzed from a subset of patients using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM).

Results

A total of 168 youths with T1DM (n = 129 in the MDI group, n = 39 in the CSII group) were included. The CSII group consistently had lower HbA1c levels compared to the MDI group throughout a 3-year follow up period: 8.1% versus 10.1, P-value < .001 at 1 year, 7.5% versus 10.1% at 2 years, P-value  < .001, 8.9% versus 10.3% at 3 years, P-value = .033. Body mass index significantly increased in both groups at 1 year, although greater in CSII group. In a subgroup using isCGM (n = 37 on MDI and n = 29 on CSII), the CSII group had a lower average blood glucose (194 mg/dL vs 228 mg/dL, P-value = .028) and a lower estimated HbA1c level (8.4% vs 9.6%, P-value = .022).

Conclusion

Treatment with CSII resulted in lower HbA1c compared to MDI in our cohort, which was sustained over a 3-year period.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adjusting inpatient insulin therapy have not been evaluated.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized trial included 185 general medicine and surgery patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen. All subjects underwent point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose testing before meals and bedtime. Patients in the standard of care (POC group) wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM with insulin dose adjusted based on POC results, while in the CGM group, insulin adjustment was based on daily CGM profile. Primary end points were differences in time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL and <54 mg/dL).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in TIR (54.51% ± 27.72 vs. 48.64% ± 24.25; P = 0.14), mean daily glucose (183.2 ± 40 vs. 186.8 ± 39 mg/dL; P = 0.36), or percent of patients with CGM values <70 mg/dL (36% vs. 39%; P = 0.68) or <54 mg/dL (14 vs. 24%; P = 0.12) between the CGM-guided and POC groups. Among patients with one or more hypoglycemic events, compared with POC, the CGM group experienced a significant reduction in hypoglycemia reoccurrence (1.80 ± 1.54 vs. 2.94 ± 2.76 events/patient; P = 0.03), lower percentage of time below range <70 mg/dL (1.89% ± 3.27 vs. 5.47% ± 8.49; P = 0.02), and lower incidence rate ratio <70 mg/dL (0.53 [95% CI 0.31-0.92]) and <54 mg/dL (0.37 [95% CI 0.17-0.83]).

CONCLUSIONS

The inpatient use of real-time Dexcom G6 CGM is safe and effective in guiding insulin therapy, resulting in a similar improvement in glycemic control and a significant reduction of recurrent hypoglycemic events compared with POC-guided insulin adjustment.

Efficacy and Safety of Intensive Versus Nonintensive Supplemental Insulin With a Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

Administration of supplemental sliding scale insulin for correction of hyperglycemia in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes is frequently used with basal-bolus insulin regimens. In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial we tested whether glycemic control is similar with and without aggressive sliding scale insulin treatment before meals and bedtime in patients treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes with admission blood glucose (BG) 140-400 mg/dL treated with basal-bolus insulin were randomized to intensive (correction for BG >140 mg/dL, n = 108) or to nonintensive (correction for BG >260 mg/dL, n = 107) administration of rapid-acting sliding scale insulin before meals and bedtime. The groups received the same amount of sliding scale insulin for BG >260 mg/dL. Primary outcome was difference in mean daily BG levels between the groups during hospitalization.

RESULTS

Mean daily BG in the nonintensive group was noninferior to BG in the intensive group with equivalence margin of 18 mg/dL (intensive 172 ± 38 mg/dL vs. nonintensive 173 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.001 for noninferiority). There were no differences in the proportion of target BG readings of 70-180 mg/dL, <70 or <54 mg/dL (hypoglycemia), or >350 mg/dL (severe hyperglycemia) or total, basal, or prandial insulin doses. Significantly fewer subjects received sliding scale insulin in the nonintensive (n = 36 [34%]) compared with the intensive (n = 98 [91%] [P < 0.0001]) group with no differences in sliding scale insulin doses between the groups among those who received sliding scale insulin (intensive 7 ± 4 units/day vs. nonintensive 8 ± 4 units/day, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Among non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes on optimal basal-bolus insulin regimen with moderate hyperglycemia (BG <260 mg/dL), a less intensive sliding scale insulin treatment did not significantly affect glycemic control.

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.

Is Raman the best strategy towards the development of non-invasive continuous glucose monitoring devices for diabetes management?

Diabetes has no well-established cure; thus, its management is critical for avoiding severe health complications involving multiple organs. This requires frequent glycaemia monitoring, and the gold standards for this are fingerstick tests. During the last decades, several blood-withdrawal-free platforms have been being studied to replace this test and to improve significantly the quality of life of people with diabetes (PWD). Devices estimating glycaemia level targeting blood or biofluids such as tears, saliva, breath and sweat, are gaining attention; however, most are not reliable, user-friendly and/or cheap. Given the complexity of the topic and the rise of diabetes, a careful analysis is essential to track scientific and industrial progresses in developing diabetes management systems. Here, we summarize the emerging blood glucose level (BGL) measurement methods and report some examples of devices which have been under development in the last decades, discussing the reasons for them not reaching the market or not being really non-invasive and continuous. After discussing more in depth the history of Raman spectroscopy-based researches and devices for BGL measurements, we will examine if this technique could have the potential for the development of a user-friendly, miniaturized, non-invasive and continuous blood glucose-monitoring device, which can operate reliably, without inter-patient variability, over sustained periods.

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.

CGM in the Hospital: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the hospital setting is growing with more patients using these devices at home and when admitted to the hospital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, most evidence for CGM use in the inpatient setting was limited to small studies utilizing outdated CGM technology and analyzing accuracy of sensor measurements. Previous studies have shown reduced sensor accuracy during extreme hypo- or hyperglycemia, rapid fluctuations of glucose, compression of the sensor itself, and in those who are critically ill. Studies that are more recent have shown CGM to have adequate accuracy and may be effective in reducing hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients; some studies have also showed improvement in time in target glycemic range. Furthermore, CGM may reduce nursing workload, cost of inpatient care, and use of personal protective equipment and face-to-face patient care especially for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review will describe the evidence for use of CGM in hospitalized critically ill or non-critically ill patients, address accuracy and safety considerations, and outline paths for future implementation.

Hospital Diabetes Meeting 2022

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by Diabetes Technology Society on April 1 and April 2, 2022. This meeting brought together experts in diabetes technology to discuss various new developments in the field of managing diabetes in hospitalized patients. Meeting topics included (1) digital health and the hospital, (2) blood glucose targets, (3) software for inpatient diabetes, (4) surgery, (5) transitions, (6) coronavirus disease and diabetes in the hospital, (7) drugs for diabetes, (8) continuous glucose monitoring, (9) quality improvement, (10) diabetes care and educatinon, and (11) uniting people, process, and technology to achieve optimal glycemic management. This meeting covered new technology that will enable better care of people with diabetes if they are hospitalized.

Evaluation of the performance and usability of a novel continuous glucose monitoring system

Background

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can help manage diabetes mellitus (DM) and prevent hypoglycemia. This study aimed to evaluate the performance and usability of a novel SiJoy GS1 CGM system.

Methods

This multicenter trial enrolled participants with DM. Based on the comparison of glucose values measured by SiJoy GS1 CGM and venous blood glucose test, the 20/20% consistency and mean absolute relative difference (MARD%) were calculated, as well as Clarke and consensus error grid analysis. Product usability was evaluated by questionnaire completed by participants. Any occurrence of adverse events (AE) was documented.

Results

Seventy participants were included in the study. The mean age of participants was 41.5 ± 13.2 years, among which 29 (42.0%) were male, with the DM course of 8.6 ± 7.5 years. A total of 39 (56.5%) of them had type 1 DM, 24 (34.8%) had type 2 DM, and 6 (8.7%) were others for DM. The 20/20% consistency achieved 91.82%, which was higher than the target 65%. The percentage of A + B zones of Clarke and consensus error grid was 99.22% and 99.90%, respectively. The MARD value was 8.83% ± 4.03%. The mean score of usability questionnaire was 86.59 ± 5.17 out of 90. AE were observed in only one participant (mild fever), and no severe AEs occurred.

Conclusions

The SiJoy GS1 CGM system achieved satisfactory performance and usability. No severe AEs occurred and mild AE was reported in only one case.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Adult Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures

CONTEXT

Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.