David L Levitt1, Elias K Spanakis1,2, Kathleen A Ryan1, Kristi D Silver1. 1. 1 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine , Baltimore, Maryland. 2. 2 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Baltimore Veterans Administration Medical Center , Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups. RESULTS: Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups. RESULTS: Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.
Authors: Lukas Schaupp; Klaus Donsa; Katharina M Neubauer; Julia K Mader; Felix Aberer; Bernhard Höll; Stephan Spat; Thomas Augustin; Peter Beck; Thomas R Pieber; Johannes Plank Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Sandra Blitz; Brian H Rowe; Jacques Romney; Thomas J Marrie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Curtiss B Cook; Karen A Beer; Karen M Seifert; Mary E Boyle; Patricia A Mackey; Janna C Castro Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-09-01
Authors: Brenda J Leonhardi; Mary E Boyle; Karen A Beer; Karen M Seifert; Marilyn Bailey; Victoria Miller-Cage; Janna C Castro; Peggy B Bourgeois; Curtiss B Cook Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-11
Authors: David M Maahs; Daniel DeSalvo; Laura Pyle; Trang Ly; Laurel Messer; Paula Clinton; Emily Westfall; R Paul Wadwa; Bruce Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Georgia M Davis; Rodolfo J Galindo; Alexandra L Migdal; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.741