In-Hospital Diabetes Management by a Diabetes Team and Insulin Titration Algorithms Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring or Point-of-Care Glucose Testing in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (DIATEC): A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Mikkel T Olsen, Carina K Klarskov, Signe H Jensen, Louise M Rasmussen, Birgitte Lindegaard, Jonas A Andersen, Hans Gottlieb, Suzanne Lunding, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Katrine B Hansen, Peter L Kristensen
{"title":"In-Hospital Diabetes Management by a Diabetes Team and Insulin Titration Algorithms Based on Continuous Glucose Monitoring or Point-of-Care Glucose Testing in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (DIATEC): A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Mikkel T Olsen, Carina K Klarskov, Signe H Jensen, Louise M Rasmussen, Birgitte Lindegaard, Jonas A Andersen, Hans Gottlieb, Suzanne Lunding, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Katrine B Hansen, Peter L Kristensen","doi":"10.2337/dc24-2222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Diabetes Team and CGM in Managing Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes (DIATEC) trial investigates the glycemic and clinical effects of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided insulin titration by diabetes teams.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This two-center trial randomized 166 non-intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes management was performed by regular staff, guided by diabetes teams using insulin titration algorithms based on either point-of-care glucose testing or CGM. The primary outcome was the difference in time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) between the two arms. Outcomes were assessed during hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CGM arm achieved a higher median (interquartile range [IQR]) TIR of 77.6% (24.4%) vs. 62.7% (31.5%) in the POC arm (P < 0.001). Median (IQR) time above range (TAR) >10.0 mmol/L was lower in the CGM arm at 21.1% (24.8%) vs. 36.5% (30.3%) in the POC arm (P = 0.001), and time below range (TBR) <3.9 mmol/L was reduced by CGM, with a relative difference to POC of 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.97; P = 0.042). Prolonged hypoglycemic events decreased (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001), and the mean (SD) coefficient of variation was lower in the CGM arm at 25.4% (6.3%) vs. 28.0% (8.2%) in the POC arm (P = 0.024). Mean (SD) total insulin doses were reduced in the CGM arm at 24.1 (13.9) vs. 29.3 (13.9) IU/day in the POC arm (P = 0.049). A composite of complications was lower in the CGM arm (IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P = 0.032).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In-hospital CGM increased TIR by 15 percentage points, mainly by reducing TAR. CGM also lowered TBR, glycemic variability, prolonged hypoglycemic events, insulin usage, and in-hospital complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":93979,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes care","volume":" ","pages":"569-578"},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-2222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The Diabetes Team and CGM in Managing Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes (DIATEC) trial investigates the glycemic and clinical effects of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided insulin titration by diabetes teams.
Research design and methods: This two-center trial randomized 166 non-intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes management was performed by regular staff, guided by diabetes teams using insulin titration algorithms based on either point-of-care glucose testing or CGM. The primary outcome was the difference in time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) between the two arms. Outcomes were assessed during hospitalization.
Results: The CGM arm achieved a higher median (interquartile range [IQR]) TIR of 77.6% (24.4%) vs. 62.7% (31.5%) in the POC arm (P < 0.001). Median (IQR) time above range (TAR) >10.0 mmol/L was lower in the CGM arm at 21.1% (24.8%) vs. 36.5% (30.3%) in the POC arm (P = 0.001), and time below range (TBR) <3.9 mmol/L was reduced by CGM, with a relative difference to POC of 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.97; P = 0.042). Prolonged hypoglycemic events decreased (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001), and the mean (SD) coefficient of variation was lower in the CGM arm at 25.4% (6.3%) vs. 28.0% (8.2%) in the POC arm (P = 0.024). Mean (SD) total insulin doses were reduced in the CGM arm at 24.1 (13.9) vs. 29.3 (13.9) IU/day in the POC arm (P = 0.049). A composite of complications was lower in the CGM arm (IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P = 0.032).
Conclusions: In-hospital CGM increased TIR by 15 percentage points, mainly by reducing TAR. CGM also lowered TBR, glycemic variability, prolonged hypoglycemic events, insulin usage, and in-hospital complications.