American Diabetes Association Advises on Hospital CGM Use

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital…There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.
CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.
About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.
The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.
The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:
If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (eg, endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.
“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 
Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
Miriam E. Tucker is a freelance journalist based in the Washington, DC, area. She is a regular contributor to Medscape Medical News, with other work appearing in The Washington Post, NPR’s Shots blog, and Diatribe. She is on X: @MiriamETucker.
 
Send comments and news tips to [email protected].