Continuous Glucose Monitoring Alarms in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: User Characteristics and the Impact of Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia Alarm Thresholds on Glycemic Control.

Background: Few studies have evaluated the implications of the alarm thresholds of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for individuals with diabetes. The present study aimed to investigate the influence of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia alarm thresholds on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and the characteristics of patients who use these alarms more frequently. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study included 873 users of the FreeStyle Libre 2 system (501 men, median age 48 years, range 18-90 years) with T1DM from a single center. We investigated the role of demographic and metabolic factors on the use of alarms and the impact of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia alarms and their thresholds on glycemic control. Results: Alarm users were older than nonusers (median age 49 vs. 43 years, respectively; P < 0.001). The hypoglycemia alarms were set by 76.1% of women and by 69.1% of men (P = 0.022). The hypoglycemia alarms reduced hypoglycemia features and glucose variability, although at the expense of shorter time in range. The higher the hypoglycemia alarm threshold, the greater these effects. The hyperglycemia alarms were effective in reducing hyperglycemia and lowering the glucose management indicator, although at the expense of a greater tendency to hypoglycemia. The lower the hyperglycemia alarm threshold, the greater these effects. Conclusions: CGM alarms contribute to better glycemic control. However, hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia alarms have advantages and disadvantages. Adults with T1DM should explore, under medical supervision, which alarm thresholds will best help them achieve their individual glycemic goals.

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during hospitalization: associated factors and prognostic value.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for hypoglycemia during hospital admission and its consequences in patients with diabetes are not entirely known. The present study aimed to investigate the risk factors for hypoglycemia, as well as the potential implications of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted to the hospital. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 324 patients (214 [66.0%] men; median age 70 years, range 34-95 years) with type 2 diabetes admitted to a university hospital who were consulted the Endocrinology Department for glycemic control during a 12-month period. We investigated the potential role of demographic factors, metabolic factors, therapy, and comorbidities on the development of in-hospital hypoglycemia. We explored the prognostic value of hypoglycemia on mortality (both in-hospital and in the long-term), hospital readmission in the following year, and metabolic control (HbA1c value) after discharge (median follow-up, 886 days; range 19-1255 days). RESULTS: Hypoglycemia occurred in 154 (47.5%) patients during their hospitalization and was associated with advanced age, previous insulin therapy, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower body mass index and lower baseline HbA1c values. Hypoglycemia was associated with greater in-hospital and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher readmission rates, and poorer metabolic control after discharge. These negative consequences of hypoglycemia were more frequent in patients with severe (≤ 55 mg/dL) hypoglycemia and in patients who had hypoglycemia during a greater percentage of hospitalization days. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglycemia during hospital admission is a marker of a poor prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.