Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) in adjusting insulin therapy in long-term care facilities (LTCF).

DESIGN

Prospective randomized clinical trial.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted to LTCF.

METHODS

Participants in the standard of care wore a blinded CGM with treatment adjusted based on point-of-care capillary glucose results before meals and bedtime (POC group). Participants in the intervention (CGM group) wore a Dexcom G6 CGM with treatment adjusted based on daily CGM profile. Treatment adjustment was performed by the LTCF medical team, with a duration of intervention up to 60 days. The primary endpoint was difference in time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Among 100 participants (age 74.73 ± 11 years, 80% admitted for subacute rehabilitation and 20% for nursing home care), there were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups, and CGM data were compared for a median of 17 days. There were no differences in TIR (53.38% ± 30.16% vs 48.81% ± 28.03%, P = .40), mean daily mean CGM glucose (184.10 ± 43.4 mg/dL vs 190.0 ± 45.82 mg/dL, P = .71), or the percentage of time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL (0.83% ± 2.59% vs 1.18% ± 3.54%, P = .51), or TBR <54 mg/dL (0.23% ± 0.85% vs 0.56% ± 2.24%, P = .88) between rt-CGM and POC groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The use of rtCGM is safe and effective in guiding insulin therapy in patients with T2D in LTCF resulting in a similar improvement in glycemic control compared to POC-guided insulin adjustment.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024

RATIONALE

Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians.

PANEL DESIGN

The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research.

RESULTS

This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Updated Consensus Statement on Perioperative Blood Glucose Management in Adult Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery

WHAT OTHER GUIDELINES ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS TOPIC

Since the publication of the SAMBA Consensus Statement for perioperative blood glucose management in the ambulatory setting in 2010, several recent guidelines have been issued by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), the Endocrine Society, the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC), and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) on DM care in hospitalized patients; however, none are specific to ambulatory surgery.

HOW DOES THIS GUIDELINE DIFFER FROM THE PREVIOUS GUIDELINES

Previously posed clinical questions that were outdated were revised to reflect current clinical practice. Additional questions were developed relating to the perioperative management of patients with DM to include the newer therapeutic interventions.

Statistical Packages and Algorithms for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures glucose levels every 1 to 15 minutes and is widely used in clinical and research contexts. Statistical packages and algorithms reduce the time-consuming and error-prone process of manually calculating CGM metrics and contribute to standardizing CGM metrics defined by international consensus. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize existing data on (1) statistical packages for retrospective CGM data analysis and (2) statistical algorithms for retrospective CGM analysis not available in these statistical packages.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted on September 19, 2023. We also searched Google Scholar and Google Search until October 12, 2023 as sources of gray literature and performed reference checks of the included literature. Articles in English and Danish were included. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378163).

RESULTS

A total of 8731 references were screened and 46 references were included. We identified 23 statistical packages for the analysis of CGM data. The statistical packages could calculate many metrics of the 2022 CGM consensus and non-consensus CGM metrics, and 22/23 (96%) statistical packages were freely available. Also, 23 statistical algorithms were identified. The statistical algorithms could be divided into three groups based on content: (1) CGM data reduction (eg, clustering of CGM data), (2) composite CGM outcomes, and (3) other CGM metrics.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides detailed tabular and textual up-to-date descriptions of the contents of statistical packages and statistical algorithms for retrospective analysis of CGM data.

Error traps in the perioperative management of children with type 1 diabetes

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) require insulin administration at all times to maintain euglycemia and metabolic stability. Insulin administration in the perioperative period is complicated by fasting requirements and perioperative stressors that can change the patient's insulin needs. In addition, many anesthesia providers are not familiar with insulin dosing strategies and technology, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), that are commonly used by patients with T1D. Errors in perioperative insulin administration can lead to hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. This article reviews common errors of associated with the perioperative management of patients with T1D, including failure to assess and coordinate patient care preoperatively; failure to understand diabetes management and technology; failure to monitor blood glucose and recognize dysglycemia; and failure to appropriately administer basal insulin.

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.

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 framework for integrating artificial intelligence for clinical care with continuous therapeutic monitoring

The complex relationships between continuously monitored health signals and therapeutic regimens can be modelled via machine learning. However, the clinical implementation of the models will require changes to clinical workflows. Here we outline ClinAIOps ('clinical artificial-intelligence operations'), a framework that integrates continuous therapeutic monitoring and the development of artificial intelligence (AI) for clinical care. ClinAIOps leverages three feedback loops to enable the patient to make treatment adjustments using AI outputs, the clinician to oversee patient progress with AI assistance, and the AI developer to receive continuous feedback from both the patient and the clinician. We lay out the central challenges and opportunities in the deployment of ClinAIOps by means of examples of its application in the management of blood pressure, diabetes and Parkinson's disease. By enabling more frequent and accurate measurements of a patient's health and more timely adjustments to their treatment, ClinAIOps may substantially improve patient outcomes.

Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting

The use of different approaches for design and results presentation of studies for the clinical performance evaluation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has long been recognized as a major challenge in comparing their results. However, a comprehensive characterization of the variability in study designs is currently unavailable. This article presents a scoping review of clinical CGM performance evaluations published between 2002 and 2022. Specifically, this review quantifies the prevalence of numerous options associated with various aspects of study design, including subject population, comparator (reference) method selection, testing procedures, and statistical accuracy evaluation. We found that there is a large variability in nearly all of those aspects and, in particular, in the characteristics of the comparator measurements. Furthermore, these characteristics as well as other crucial aspects of study design are often not reported in sufficient detail to allow an informed interpretation of study results. We therefore provide recommendations for reporting the general study design, CGM system use, comparator measurement approach, testing procedures, and data analysis/statistical performance evaluation. Additionally, this review aims to serve as a foundation for the development of a standardized CGM performance evaluation procedure, thereby supporting the goals and objectives of the Working Group on CGM established by the Scientific Division of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

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.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) systems were originally intended only for people with diabetes. Recently, there has been interest in monitoring glucose concentrations in a variety of other situations. As data accumulate to support the use of CGM systems in additional states unrelated to diabetes, the use of CGM systems is likely to increase accordingly.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles about the use of CGM in individuals without diabetes. Relevant articles that included sufficient details were queried to identify what cohorts of individuals were adopting CGM use and to define trends of use.

RESULTS

Four clinical user cases were identified: (1) metabolic diseases related to diabetes with a primary dysregulation of the insulin-glucose axis, (2) metabolic diseases without a primary pathophysiologic derangement of the insulin-glucose axis, (3) health and wellness, and (4) elite athletics. Seven trends in the use of CGM systems in people without diabetes were idenfitied which pertained to both FDA-cleared medical grade products as well as anticipated future products, which may be regulated differently based on intended populations and indications for use.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing a CGM has been used not only for diabetes, but with a goal of improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivate healthy behavioral changes. We expect that clinicians will become increasingly aware of (1) glycemic patterns from CGM tracings that predict an increased risk of diabetes, (2) specific metabolic glucotypes from CGM tracings that predict an increased risk of diabetes, and (3) new genetic and genomic biomarkers in the future.

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.

Glycemic control metrics in a cohort of hospitalized patients with type 1 diabetes using hybrid closed-loop and advanced hybrid closed-loop systems

AIMS

To describe Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) and advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) performance in the hospital setting based on the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics description.

METHODS

This was an observational study from a cohort of patients with T1D using HCL/AHCL with history of hospitalization. CGM metrics were analyzed during the hospital stay. CGM metrics sub-analysis of the population with active Automated Mode (AM) and SmartGuard (SG) during hospitalization and/or surgical procedure was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included (50 % women; mean age, 49 years [inter-quartile range (IQR), 39-62 years]). During hospitalization 70.8 % patients achieved %Time in Range (TIR) between 70 and 180 mg/dL ≥ 70 %. The overall %TIR was 75.5 % (IQR, 67.3-81.5 %), % time below range (TBR) < 70 mg/dL was 2.1 % (IQR, 0.7-5.4 %) and %TBR < 54 mg/dL was 0 % (IQR, 0-5.4 %). Users of the AHCL with active SG achieved a non-significant higher %TIR during hospitalization (79 % [73.8.88 %] vs. 76 % [72.81 %], p = 0.312) and had a shorter stay (3[IQR, 2.4] vs. 6 days[IQR, 5.7], p = 0.045) compared to the users of the HCL with AM active. No device-related serious adverse events occurred for users of either system.

CONCLUSIONS

HCL/AHCL systems with active AM/SG in patients with T1D in the hospital environment leads to %TIR > 70 % in ranges of 70-180 mg/dL in patients without increasing hypoglycemia.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Hospital: The Diabetes Technology Society Hospital Meeting Report 2023

The annual Virtual Hospital Diabetes Meeting was hosted by the Diabetes Technology Society on April 14 and 15, 2023, with the goal of reviewing the progress made in the hospital use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Meeting topics included (1) Nursing Issues, Protocols, Order Sets, and Staff Education for Using CGMs, (2) Implementing CGM Programs for Use in the Wards, (3) Quality Metrics and Financial Implications of CGMs in the Hospital, (4) CGMs in the Critical Care Setting, (5) Special Situations: Labor/Delivery and Hemodialysis, (6) Research Session on CGMs in the Hospital, (7) Starting a CGM on Hospitalized Patients, (8) Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in the Hospital, (9) CGMs in Children, (10) Data Integration of CGMs for Inpatient Use and Telemetry, (11) Accuracy of CGMs/Comparison with Point-of-care Blood Glucose Testing, and (12) Discharge Planning with CGMs. Outcome data as well as shared collective real-life experiences were reviewed, and expert recommendations for CGM implementation were formulated.

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.

The diabetes patient for ambulatory surgery

Perioperative management of blood glucose is vital to the recovery and return to normal life for patients with diabetes undergoing ambulatory surgery. Important aspects of the preoperative assessment include the evaluation of the patient's usual level of control and self-management skills and the occurrence of hypoglycemia. There are disputes on the perioperative administration of diabetes medications, insulin, and certain other drugs. This article will provide information on current recommendations for ambulatory surgery and anesthesia for diabetic patients. It will address controversies and reemphasize important points of optimal care. New drugs and technologies for diabetes patients that may impact the perioperative period will be described.

Perceptions of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in the T1D Exchange Diabetes Registry: Satisfaction, Concerns, and Areas for Future Improvement

Manufacturers continue to improve performance and usability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. As CGM becomes a standard of care, especially for people on insulin therapy, it is important to routinely gauge how satisfied people with diabetes are with this technology. This article describes survey feedback from a large cohort of people with diabetes using older and current CGM systems and highlights areas of current satisfaction, concern, and future system improvement.

Type 1 Diabetes Overview and Perioperative Management

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an increasingly common condition. Although often more effective, treatment regimens for patients with T1D have become more variable and complex with newer insulin analogues and increasing use of diabetes technology. Both surgery and anesthesia are known to trigger a stress response that causes dramatic metabolic changes in the patient that tend to increase glucose variability. Close monitoring of glucose levels and clear algorithms for insulin administration can ameliorate these characteristic responses. As T1D treatment technology becomes more effective at maintaining glucose in target range, there should be more consideration of using this technology during hospitalization and surgery.

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.

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.

Perioperative glycemic management in adults presenting for elective cardiac and non-cardiac surgery

Perioperative dysglycemia is associated with adverse outcomes in both cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients. Hyperglycemia in the perioperative period is associated with an increased risk of postoperative infections, length of stay, and mortality. Hypoglycemia can induce neuronal damage, leading to significant cognitive deficits, as well as death. This review endeavors to summarize existing literature on perioperative dysglycemia and provides updates on pharmacotherapy and management of perioperative hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in surgical patients.

Adjustment of Maternal Variable Rate Insulin Infusions Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital holds promise; however, further evidence is required on its use to guide adjustment of variable rate intravenous insulin infusion (VRIII). We retrospectively analyzed data from 20 women with type 1 diabetes during the peripartum period who were commenced on VRIII. Data were analyzed for CGM accuracy (Dexcom G6) using point-of-care glucose-CGM matched pairs. The study was entirely observational, with no deviation from standard clinical care. Twenty women were included; median age 30 (26-35) years with first glycated hemoglobin in pregnancy of 57 (49-60) mmol/mol. Overall median absolute relative difference was 6.1 (1.6-17.3)%. The total simulated CGM-adjusted VRIII was 2.5 U per hour, compared with 2.4 U per hour with capillary blood glucose-adjusted VRIII. In this retrospective analysis of CGM adjustment of maternal VRIII, we demonstrate early feasibility and considerable accuracy. Further prospective studies are required to confirm the safety and potential efficacy of CGM-based insulin titration.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospital Settings for People With Diabetes: A Scoping Review of Emerging Benefits and Issues

BACKGROUND

Evidence indicates that poor glycemic control is associated with increased morbidity and length of stay in hospital. There are a wide range of guidelines published, which seek to ensure safe and effective inpatient glycemic control in the hospital setting. However, the implementation of these protocols is limited in practice. In particular, the feasibility of "flash" and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains untested on general wards.

METHOD

Scoping Review.

RESULTS

If used in the general ward hospital settings, CGM and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems could lead to improved glycemic control, decreased length of stay, and reduced risk of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Potential problems include lack of experience with this technology and costs of sensors. Rapid analysis of glucose measurements can facilitate clinical decision making and therapy adjustment in the hospital setting. In addition, people with diabetes may be empowered to better self-manage their condition in hospital as they have direct access to their glucose data.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are required in which the feasibility, benefits and limitations of FGM and CGM in non-intensive care unit hospital settings are elucidated. We need evidence on which types of hospital wards might benefit from the introduction of this technology and the contexts in which they are less useful. We also need to identify the types of people who are most likely to find FGM and CGM useful for self-management and for which populations they have the most benefit in terms of clinical outcomes and length of stay.

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.

Interruption of CGM: Frequency and Adverse Consequences

BACKGROUND

Removal of diabetes devices, including insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), is a common practice due to hospital policies, interference with imaging studies, medications, and surgical interventions. Furthermore, these devices are inherently prone to malfunction, adhesive failure, and issues with insertion that can lead to a reduction in wear time. Prescription and dispensing practices provide an exact number of sensors per month without redundancy to account for the realities of daily CGM use.

METHODS

A RedCap survey was completed by adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D or T2D) who utilize CGM followed in the Diabetes Center at Washington University in St Louis.

RESULTS

Of 384 surveys sent, 99 were completed. Participants had a mean age of 54 years, T1D 69%, female 70%, White 96%, non-Hispanic 96%, and a mean duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) 28 years. Of the cohort, 100% used CGM (80.2% Dexcom, 13.5% Freestyle Libre, 6.3% Medtronic), 61% insulin pump, and 41% Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems. CGM-related disruption events included device malfunction (in 85.4% of participants), insertion problems (63.5%), and falling off (61.4%). Medical care-related disruption occurred most frequently in the setting of imaging (41.7%), followed by surgery/procedures (11.7%) and hospitalization (4.4%). Adverse glycemic events attributed to CGM disruption, including hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, occurred ≥4 times in 36.5% and 12.4% of the cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruption in CGM use is common. Lack of redundancy of CGM supplies contributes to care disruption and adverse glycemic events.

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.

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.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2023)]

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

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.

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.

In Vitro Evaluation of Miniaturized Amperometric Enzyme Sensor Based on the Direct Electron Transfer Principle for Continuous Glucose Monitoring

BACKGROUND

The bacterial derived flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD)-dependent glucose dehydrogenase (FADGDH) is the most promising enzyme for the third-generation principle-based enzyme sensor for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Due to the ability of the enzyme to transfer electrons directly to the electrode, recognized as direct electron transfer (DET)-type FADGDH, although no investigation has been reported about DET-type FADGDH employed on a miniaturized integrated electrode.

METHODS

The miniaturized integrated electrode was formed by sputtering gold (Au) onto a flexible film with 0.1 mm in thickness and divided into 3 parts. After an insulation layer was laminated, 3 openings for a working electrode, a counter electrode and a reference electrode were formed by dry etching. A reagent mix containing 1.2 × 10^-4 Unit of DET-type FADGDH and carbon particles was deposited. The long-term stability of sensor was evaluated by continuous operation, and its performance was also evaluated in the presence of acetaminophen and the change in oxygen partial pressure (pO₂) level.

RESULTS

The amperometric response of the sensor showed a linear response to glucose concentration up to 500 mg/dL without significant change of the response over an 11-day continuous measurement. Moreover, the effect of acetaminophen and pO₂ on the response were negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate the superb potential of the DET-type FADGDH-based sensor with the combination of a miniaturized integrated electrode. Thus, the described miniaturized DET-type glucose sensor for CGM will be a promising tool for effective glycemic control. This will be further investigated using an in vivo study.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Inpatient Diabetes Management with Non-insulin Agents: an Overview of International Practices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of inpatient diabetes has advanced significantly over the last 20 years, leading to the development of personalized treatment approaches. However, outdated guidelines still recommend the use of basal-bolus insulin therapy as the preferred treatment approach, and against the use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several observational and prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that oral anti-hyperglycemic agents are widely used in the hospital, including studies of DPP-4 agents and GLP-1 agonists. With advances in the field of inpatient diabetes management, a paradigm shift has occurred, from an approach of recommending "basal-bolus regimens" for all patients to a more precision medicine option for hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

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

The Role of the Diabetes Care and Education Specialist in the Hospital Setting

It is the position of Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists that all inpatient interdisciplinary teams include a diabetes care and education specialist to lead or support quality improvement initiatives that affect persons hospitalized with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. This encompasses not only patient, family, and caregiver education but also education of interdisciplinary team members and achievement of diabetes-related organizational quality metrics and performance outcomes.

Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in High Risk Hospitalized Non-critically ill Patients with Diabetes after Cardiac Surgery and during their Transition of Care from the Intensive Care Unit during Covid-19-A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated benefits in managing inpatient diabetes. We initiated this single-arm pilot feasibility study during the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 patients to determine the feasibility and accuracy of real-time CGM in cardiac surgery patients with diabetes after their transition of care from the intensive care unit(ICU).

METHODS

Clarke Error Grid(CEG) analysis was used to compare CGM and point-of-care(POC) measurements. Mean absolute relative difference(MARD) of the paired measurements was calculated to assess the accuracy of the CGM for glucose measurements during the first 24 hours on CGM, the remainder of time on the CGM as well as for different chronic kidney disease(CKD) strata.

RESULTS

Overall MARD between POC and CGM measurements was 14.80%. MARD for patients without CKD IV and V with eGFR < 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 12.13%. Overall, 97% of the CGM values were within the no-risk zone of the CEG analysis. For the first 24 hours, a sensitivity analysis of the overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 15.42% (+/- 14.44) and 12.80% (+/- 7.85) respectively. Beyond the first 24 hours, overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 14.54% (+/- 13.21) and 11.86% (+/- 7.64) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CGM has great promise to optimize inpatient diabetes management in the noncritical care setting and after the transition of care from the ICU with high clinical reliability, and accuracy. More studies are needed to further assess CGM in patients with advanced CKD.