Cited by 153Diabetes Management and ResearchHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsDiabetes Treatment and Management

Continuous glucose monitoring-guided insulin administration in hospitalized patients with diabetes: a randomized clinical trial

Open access
Spanakis, Elias K., Urrutia, Agustina, Galindo, Rodolfo J., Vellanki, Priyathama, Migdal, Alexandra L., Davis, Georgia, Fayfman, Maya, Idrees, Thaer +16 more·2022·Diabetes Care

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc22-0716

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data on the safety and efficacy of real-time CGM use in the hospital, particularly with implementation of remote monitoring (e.g., a glucose telemetry system), has grown.

    “Data on the safety and efficacy of real-time CGM use in the hospital, particularly with implementation of remote monitoring (e.g., a glucose telemetry system), has grown (47,50-52).”
  • Studies assessing effectiveness of inpatient CGM may ultimately lead to approved use of CGM for monitoring hospitalized individuals.

    “Studies have been published assessing the effectiveness of this approach, which may ultimately lead to the approved use of CGM for monitoring hospitalized individuals (277,286-295).”

    From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [293]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spanakis, E. K., Urrutia, A., Galindo, R. J., Vellanki, P., Migdal, A. L., Davis, G., Fayfman, M., Idrees, T., Pasquel, F. J., Coronado, W. Z., Albury, B., Moreno, E., Singh, L. G., Marcano, I., Lizama, S., Gothong, C., Munir, K., Chesney, C., Maguire, R., Scott, W. H., Perez-Guzman, M. C., Cardona, S., Peng, L., & Umpierrez, G. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland Medical Center (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • 3Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
  • Baltimore VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Umpierrez, Guillermo E.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2022-08-19
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
2369-2375
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4292379787
Cited by
153
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 3
FWCI
22.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH/NATS (UL 3UL1TR002378-05S2)
  • VA Merit CSRD (1I01CX001825)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1K23DK113241, 1K23DK122199, 1K23DK123384-03, K23GM128221, P30DK11102)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, insulin dose adjustment, hospitalized patients, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, multiple daily insulin injections, hypoglycemia, time in range, point-of-care glucose testing, Dexcom G6, inpatient glycemic control
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glucose, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Insulin, Regular, Human

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review