Reliability of Inpatient CGM: Comparison to Standard of Care

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110621
Author(s):  
Catherine Price ◽  
Gillian Ditton ◽  
Gregory B. Russell ◽  
Joseph Aloi

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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Omer H Tarar ◽  
Andres J Munoz

Abstract Introduction Diabetic Gustatory Hyperhidrosis is characterized by profuse sweating with eating and may be a manifestation of Diabetic autonomic dysfunction. Most patients have evidence of other microvascular complications including nephropathy, retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy and other signs of autonomic neuropathy. We present 2 cases of gustatory hyperhidrosis associated with longstanding poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. Case 1: 49 year old Male with past medical history of longstanding type 1 diabetes with poor control, complicated with diabetic retinopathy, polyneuropathy, albuminuria presented to endocrine clinic for management of diabetes. His hemoglobin A1c was 10.8%. He was on basal-bolus Insulin at home. However, he admitted to missing most doses of prandial Insulin. On further questioning, he mentioned having episodes of profuse head and neck sweating while eating any type of food. He attributed these episodes to “low blood sugars” without checking and therefore tried to avoid Insulin. However, he continued having these episodes. He was diagnosed with Diabetic gustatory hyperhidrosis and started on topical Aluminum hexahydrate. Case 2: 34 year old Female with past medical history of long-standing DM type 1 complicated with poly- neuropathy, autonomic dysfunction, nephropathy, Retinopathy, chronic kidney disease stage III presented for follow up of her diabetes. Her hemoglobin A1c was 9.8%. She was on basal-bolus Insulin at home and reported good compliance. Given her extensive polyneuropathy, she was questioned about hyperhidrosis. She reported having profuse facial and neck sweating with eating all types of food which led to increased embarrassment while eating in public. She was diagnosed with diabetic gustatory hyperhidrosis and started on topical aluminum hexahydrate, with plans for Botox if symptoms persisted. Discussion Diabetic Gustatory Hyperhidrosis is an under- recognized condition and may be misdiagnosed as hypoglycemia, anxiety, gastroparesis or other conditions. This gustatory sweating is a source of severe distress and embarrassment for patients and can have serious emotional, social and professional implications. Associated symptoms may also be mistaken for hypoglycemia and in turn lead to nonadherence with Insulin and other diabetic medications causing suboptimal glycemic control. Topical anti-perspirants like Aluminum Chloride hexahydrate are often used as first line therapy. Second line treatment options include glycopyrrolate, Oxybutynin and Botulinum toxin. Conclusion Most patients are reluctant to mention these symptoms to health care providers and diligent history taking with specific questions in high risk patients may help in early identification and management of this condition. Early identification and management can also help promote overall confidence, quality of life and better glycemic control.


2020 ◽  
pp. 193229682093480
Author(s):  
Marta Bassi ◽  
Nicola Minuto ◽  
Graziella Fichera ◽  
Clara Rebora ◽  
Alice Parodi ◽  
...  

Background: The aim of the study was to determine the effect of an educational intervention on the use of trend arrows of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) to manage daily therapy decisions in a group of adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending a camp. The secondary aim was to evaluate the variations in total daily dose (TDD) of insulin requirement. Methods: Twenty patients (15-17 years) on multiple insulin injections ( n = 8) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion ( n = 12) attended a training session at the beginning of the camp to learn our algorithm for the management of therapy depending on trend arrows. TDD, time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR) (in the 24 hours and in the three hours after breakfast) before the training session (run-in) and at the end of the camp (T1) were analyzed. Results: Data showed a reduction of TAR (run-in 42.6%, T1 32.05%, P = .036) and an increase in TIR (run-in 52.9%, T1 62.4%, P = .013). Reduction of TBR (run-in 42.5%, T1 37.5%, P = .05) and improvement in TIR (run-in 49.0%, T1 57.0%, P = .02) were also observed in the post-breakfast period. Data showed a significant reduction in the TDD (run-in 52.02 ± 17.44 U/die, T1 46.49 ± 12.39 U/die, P = .024). Conclusions: Statistically significant improvement of glycemic control and reduction of TTD were observed in all patients regardless of therapy type. The improvement between run-in and T1 demonstrates the importance of patients’ education on the correct use of rt-CGM with simple algorithms for the management of therapy.


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian-Wen Chen ◽  
Jens Sandahl Christiansen ◽  
Torsten Lauritzen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document