Feasibility of Multiparametric Perfusion Assessment in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Blood Oxygenation-Level Dependent MRI.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM) are at increased risk of developing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) and experiencing impaired wound healing related to underlying microvascular disease. PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of intra-voxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MRI to microvascular changes in patients with DFUs. STUDY TYPE: Case-control. POPULATION: 20 volunteers who were age and body mass index matched, including T2DM patients with DFUs (N = 10, mean age = 57.5 years), T2DM patients with controlled glycemia and without DFUs (DC, N = 5, mean age = 57.4 years) and healthy controls (HC, N = 5, mean age = 52.8 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T/multi-b-value IVIM and dynamic BOLD. ASSESSMENT: Resting IVIM parameters were obtained using a multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging sequence and two IVIM models were fit to obtain diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and microvascular volume fraction (MVF) parameters. Microvascular reactivity was evaluated by inducing an ischemic state in the foot with a blood pressure cuff during dynamic BOLD imaging. Perfusion indices were assessed in two regions of the foot: the medial plantar (MP) and lateral plantar (LP) regions. STATISTICAL TESTS: Effect sizes of group mean differences were assessed using Hedge's g adjusted for small sample sizes. RESULTS: DFU participants exhibited elevated D*, f, and MVF values in both regions (g ≥ 1.10) and increased D (g = 1.07) in the MP region compared to DC participants. DC participants showed reduced f and MVF compared to HC participants in the MP region (g ≥ 1.06). Finally, the DFU group showed reduced tolerance for ischemia in the LP region (g = -1.51) and blunted reperfusion response in both regions (g < -2.32) compared to the DC group during the cuff-occlusion challenge. DATA CONCLUSION: The combined use of IVIM and BOLD MRI shows promise in differentiating perfusion abnormalities in the feet of diabetic patients and suggests hyperperfusion in DFU patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Assessment of Glycemic Control by Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Hemoglobin A1c, Fructosamine, and Glycated Albumin in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease and Burnt-Out Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may experience "burnt-out diabetes," defined as having an HbA1c value <6.5% without antidiabetic therapy for >6 months. We aim to assess glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6 CGM) metrics and glycemic markers in ESKD patients on hemodialysis with burnt-out diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this pilot prospective study, glycemic control was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), HbA1c measures, and glycated albumin and fructosamine measurements in patients with burnt-out diabetes (n = 20) and without a history of diabetes (n = 20). RESULTS: Patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher CGM-measured daily glucose levels, lower percent time in the range 70-180 mg/dL, higher percent time above range (>250 mg/dL), and longer duration of hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL (hours/day) compared with patients without diabetes (all P < 0.01). HbA1c and fructosamine levels were similar; however, patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher levels of glycated albumin than did patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CGM demonstrated that patients with burnt-out diabetes have significant undiagnosed hyperglycemia. CGM and glycated albumin provide better assessment of glycemic control than do values of HbA1c and fructosamine in patients with ESKD.

Microbiome differences related to metformin intolerance among Black individuals with diabetes, a pilot cross-sectional study.

Aims: Metformin is the broadly accepted the first-line medication for diabetes. Its use, however, is limited by gastrointestinal side effects present in approximately 25% of patients. This study aimed to better understand the interplay between metformin intolerance and gut microbiota among Black individuals with diabetes. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study among 29 Black individuals living with diabetes with or without metformin intolerance. Participants with mean age 59±11, 58% female, were stratified into three groups: 1)intolerant: metformin intolerance in the past, not on metformin; 2)partially intolerant: mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms, currently taking metformin 3)tolerant: using metformin without symptoms. We collected and analyzed rectal swabs and analyzed microbiota composition using V3-V4 regions of the 16s rRNA. Results: Metformin intolerant subjects trended towards having greatest alpha diversity, followed by tolerant and partially tolerant (Intolerant:4.9; Tolerant:4.2; Partially tolerant:3.9). Mean difference in alpha diversity for intolerant versus partially tolerant was 1.0 (95% CI-0.1,2.1) and intolerant versus tolerant were 0.7 (95% CI -0.4,1.8). Conclusion: This was the first study to evaluate the role of microbiota and metformin intolerance among Black individuals. We report on differences in alpha diversity as well as microbiota composition.

Intelligent Care Management for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Scoping Review of Computer Vision and Machine Learning Techniques and Applications.

Ten percent of adults in the United States have a diagnosis of diabetes and up to a third of these individuals will develop a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) in their lifetime. Of those who develop a DFU, a fifth will ultimately require amputation with a mortality rate of up to 70% within five years. The human suffering, economic burden, and disproportionate impact of diabetes on communities of color has led to increasing interest in the use of computer vision (CV) and machine learning (ML) techniques to aid the detection, characterization, monitoring, and even prediction of DFUs. Remote monitoring and automated classification are expected to revolutionize wound care by allowing patients to self-monitor their wound pathology, assist in the remote triaging of patients by clinicians, and allow for more immediate interventions when necessary. This scoping review provides an overview of applicable CV and ML techniques. This includes automated CV methods developed for remote assessment of wound photographs, as well as predictive ML algorithms that leverage heterogeneous data streams. We discuss the benefits of such applications and the role they may play in diabetic foot care moving forward. We highlight both the need for, and possibilities of, computational sensing systems to improve diabetic foot care and bring greater knowledge to patients in need.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDegLira Versus Basal-Bolus in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes and Very High HbA1c ≥9-15%: DUAL HIGH Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HbA1c >9.0-10.0%, guidelines recommend treatment with basal-bolus insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus among participants with high HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, previously treated with 2 or 3 oral agents and/or basal insulin, allocated (1:1) to basal-bolus (n = 73) or IDegLira (n = 72). The primary end point was noninferiority (0.4%) in HbA1c reduction between groups. RESULTS: Among 145 participants (HbA1c 10.8% ± 1.3), there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c reduction (3.18% ± 2.29 vs. 3.00% ± 1.79, P = 0.65; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18%, 95% CI -0.59, 0.94) between the IDegLira and basal-bolus groups. IDegLira resulted in significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (26% vs. 48%, P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19, 0.78), and less weight gain (1.24 ± 8.33 vs. 5.84 ± 6.18 kg, P = 0.001; ETD -4.60, 95% CI -7.33, -1.87). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with T2D and HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, IDegLira resulted in similar HbA1c reduction, less hypoglycemia, and less weight gain compared with the basal-bolus regimen.

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in an Uninsured and Underinsured Cohort.

Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually treated with prolonged outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Evaluation and treatment of non-antibiotic aspects of DFO (e.g., peripheral artery disease [PAD]) are also recommended. There is limited data regarding OPAT practice patterns and outcomes for DFO. Methods: Single-center observational study of patients receiving OPAT for DFO in a large United States public hospital between January 2017 and July 2019. We abstracted data regarding microbiology test, antibiotics, clinical outcomes, and non-antibiotic DFO management. Results: Ninety-six patients were included and some had >1 DFO-OPAT course during the study period (106 DFO-OPAT courses included). No culture was obtained in 40 (38%) of courses. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was cultured in 15 (14%) and P. aeruginosa in 1 (1%) of DFO-OPAT courses. An antibiotic with MRSA activity (vancomycin or daptomycin) was used in 79 (75%) of courses and a parenteral antibiotic with anti-pseudomonal activity was used in 7 (6%) of courses. Acute kidney injury occurred in 19 (18%) DFO-OPAT courses. An ankle-brachial index measurement was obtained during or 6 months prior to the first DFO-OPAT course for 44 (49%) of patients. Forty-two (44%) patients died or had an amputation within 12 months of their initial hospital discharge. Conclusions: We found high rates of empiric antibiotic therapy for DFO and low uptake of the non-antibiotic aspects of DFO care. Better implementation of microbiological tests for DFO in addition to stronger integration of infectious disease and non-infectious diseases care could improve DFO outcomes.

Using the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities framework to better understand disparities in major amputations.

Recently, the United States experienced its first resurgence of major amputations in more than 20 years. Compounding this rise is a longstanding history of disparities. Patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black are twice as likely to lose a limb as those identifying as non-Hispanic White. Those identifying as Latino face a 30% increase. Rural patients are also more likely to undergo major amputations, and the rural-urban disparity is widening. We used the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities framework to better understand these disparities and identify common factors contributing to them. Common factors were abundant and included increased prevalence of diabetes, possible lower rates of foot self-care, transportation barriers to medical appointments, living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and lack of insurance. Solutions within and outside the health care realm are needed. Health care-specific interventions that embed preventative and ambulatory care services within communities may be particularly high yield.

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2022.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 3 to November 5, 2022. Meeting topics included (1) the measurement of glucose, insulin, and ketones; (2) virtual diabetes care; (3) metrics for managing diabetes and predicting outcomes; (4) integration of continuous glucose monitor data into the electronic health record; (5) regulation of diabetes technology; (6) digital health to nudge behavior; (7) estimating carbohydrates; (8) fully automated insulin delivery systems; (9) hypoglycemia; (10) novel insulins; (11) insulin delivery; (12) on-body sensors; (13) continuous glucose monitoring; (14) diabetic foot ulcers; (15) the environmental impact of diabetes technology; and (16) spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. A live demonstration of a device that can allow for the recycling of used insulin pens was also presented.

Outpatient clinic attendance and outcomes among patients hospitalized with diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on post-hospital discharge clinic attendance rates and outcomes among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Retrospective study of patients hospitalized with a DFU from 2016 to 2019 in a large public hospital. We measured rates and predictors of clinic attendance with providers involved with DFU care within 30 days of hospital discharge ("30-day post-discharge clinic attendance"). Log-binomial regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 888 patients, 60.0 % were between 45 and 64 years old, 80.5 % were Black, and 24.1 % were uninsured. Overall, 478 (53.8 %) attended ≥1 30-day post-discharge clinic appointment. Initial hospital outcomes were associated with clinic attendance. For example, the RR of 30-day post-discharge clinic attendance was 1.39 (95%CI 1.19-1.61) among patients who underwent a major amputation compared to patients with DFUs without osteomyelitis and did not undergo an amputation during the initial hospitalization. Among 390 patients with known 12-month outcome, 71 (18.2 %) had a major amputation or died ≤12 months of hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: We found a low post-discharge clinic attendance and high post-discharge amputation and death rates among patients hospitalized with DFUs. Interventions to increase access to outpatient DFU care are needed and could prevent amputations.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Intensive Versus Nonintensive Supplemental Insulin With a Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVE: Administration of supplemental sliding scale insulin for correction of hyperglycemia in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes is frequently used with basal-bolus insulin regimens. In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial we tested whether glycemic control is similar with and without aggressive sliding scale insulin treatment before meals and bedtime in patients treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes with admission blood glucose (BG) 140-400 mg/dL treated with basal-bolus insulin were randomized to intensive (correction for BG >140 mg/dL, n = 108) or to nonintensive (correction for BG >260 mg/dL, n = 107) administration of rapid-acting sliding scale insulin before meals and bedtime. The groups received the same amount of sliding scale insulin for BG >260 mg/dL. Primary outcome was difference in mean daily BG levels between the groups during hospitalization. RESULTS: Mean daily BG in the nonintensive group was noninferior to BG in the intensive group with equivalence margin of 18 mg/dL (intensive 172 ± 38 mg/dL vs. nonintensive 173 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.001 for noninferiority). There were no differences in the proportion of target BG readings of 70-180 mg/dL, <70 or <54 mg/dL (hypoglycemia), or >350 mg/dL (severe hyperglycemia) or total, basal, or prandial insulin doses. Significantly fewer subjects received sliding scale insulin in the nonintensive (n = 36 [34%]) compared with the intensive (n = 98 [91%] [P < 0.0001]) group with no differences in sliding scale insulin doses between the groups among those who received sliding scale insulin (intensive 7 ± 4 units/day vs. nonintensive 8 ± 4 units/day, P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Among non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes on optimal basal-bolus insulin regimen with moderate hyperglycemia (BG <260 mg/dL), a less intensive sliding scale insulin treatment did not significantly affect glycemic control.

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups. RESULTS: Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine. CONCLUSION: Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.

Liraglutide hospital discharge trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of liraglutide versus insulin glargine for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes after hospital discharge.

AIM: To compare a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin at hospital discharge in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 273 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7%-10% (53-86 mol/mol) were randomized to liraglutide (n = 136) or insulin glargine (n = 137) at hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA1c at 12 and 26 weeks. Secondary endpoints included hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia or weight gain. RESULTS: The between-group difference in HbA1c at 12 weeks and 26 weeks was -0.28% (95% CI -0.64, 0.09), and at 26 weeks it was -0.55%, (95% CI -1.01, -0.09) in favour of liraglutide. Liraglutide treatment resulted in a lower frequency of hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (13% vs 23%; P = 0.04), but there was no difference in the rate of clinically significant hypoglycaemia <3.0 mmol/L. Compared to insulin glargine, liraglutide treatment was associated with greater weight loss at 26 weeks (-4.7 ± 7.7 kg vs -0.6 ± 11.5 kg; P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia was 48% versus 33% (P = 0.05) at 12 weeks and 45% versus 33% (P = 0.14) at 26 weeks in liraglutide versus insulin glargine. The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia and no weight gain was higher with liraglutide at 12 (41% vs 24%, P = 0.005) and 26 weeks (39% vs 22%; P = 0.014). The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with liraglutide than with insulin glargine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to insulin glargine, treatment with liraglutide at hospital discharge resulted in better glycaemic control and greater weight loss, but increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

Sitagliptin for the prevention and treatment of perioperative hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess whether treatment with sitagliptin, starting before surgery and continued during the hospital stay, can prevent and reduce the severity of perioperative hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in adults with type 2 diabetes randomly assigned to receive sitagliptin or matching placebo starting 1 day prior to surgery and continued during the hospital stay. The primary outcome was difference in the proportion of patients with postoperative hyperglycaemia (blood glucose [BG] > 10 mmol/L [>180 mg/dL]) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Secondary endpoints included differences in mean daily BG in the ICU and after transition to regular wards, hypoglycaemia, hospital complications, length of stay and need of insulin therapy. RESULTS: We included 182 participants randomized to receive sitagliptin or placebo (91 per group, age 64 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.5% and diabetes duration 10 ± 9 years). There were no differences in the number of patients with postoperative BG greater than 10 mmol/L, mean daily BG in the ICU or after transition to regular wards, hypoglycaemia, hospital complications or length of stay. There were no differences in insulin requirements in the ICU; however, sitagliptin therapy was associated with lower mean daily insulin requirements (21.1 ± 18.4 vs. 32.5 ± 26.3 units, P = .007) after transition to a regular ward compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: The administration of sitagliptin prior to surgery and during the hospital stay did not prevent perioperative hyperglycaemia or complications after CABG. Sitagliptin therapy was associated with lower mean daily insulin requirements after transition to regular wards.

Percutaneous Bone Biopsy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is the leading cause of lower extremity nontraumatic amputation globally, and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually the terminal event before limb loss. Although guidelines recommend percutaneous bone biopsy (PBB) for microbiological diagnosis of DFO in several common scenarios, it is unclear how frequently PBBs yield positive cultures and whether they cause harm or improve outcomes. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials databases for articles in any language published up to December 31, 2019, reporting the frequency of culture-positive PBBs. We calculated the pooled proportion of culture-positive PBBs using a random-effects meta-analysis model and reported on PBB-related adverse events, DFO outcomes, and antibiotic adjustment based on PBB culture results where available. RESULTS: Among 861 articles, 11 studies met inclusion criteria and included 780 patients with 837 PBBs. Mean age ranged between 56.6 and 71.0 years old. The proportion of males ranged from 62% to 86%. All studies were longitudinal observational cohorts, and 10 were from Europe. The range of culture-positive PBBs was 56%-99%, and the pooled proportion of PBBs with a positive culture was 84% (95% confidence interval, 73%-91%). There was heterogeneity between studies and no consistency in definitions used to define adverse events. Impact of PBB on DFO outcomes or antibiotic management were seldom reported. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests PBBs have a high yield of culture-positive results. However, this is an understudied topic, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and the current literature provides very limited data regarding procedure safety and impact on clinical outcomes or antibiotic management.

Barriers to diabetic foot care in a disadvantaged population: A qualitative assessment.

OBJECTIVE: We explored barriers to proper foot care in this population using a qualitative approach with focus group discussions (FGD). METHODS: Participants were recruited from clinics at a safety-net hospital in Atlanta, Georgia and stratified into two groups: diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and minor amputation (below ankle). The FGDs addressed patient experience in receiving care with a goal of understanding: foot care knowledge, barriers to care, and preferred educational methods. Surveys were performed to supplement FGDs. RESULTS: Forty participants (90% Black) were enrolled. Dominant themes emerging from FGDs were: 1-Patients reported adequate understanding of recommended foot care practices; 2-Personal barriers to self-care included lack of motivation, high cost, poor insurance coverage of supplies, and difficulty limiting activity for proper offloading; 3-Hospital system barriers included difficulty making timely appointments and reaching a provider to arrange care; 4-Access to footcare-related information and services improved with greater disease severity. Participants stressed that improved access often came too late to alter their course. They expressed interest in developing peer support groups to facilitate learning and sharing information relating to DFU. CONCLUSION: We found that patients with DFU or minor amputations have adequate footcare-related knowledge, but personal and systemic barriers limited appropriate foot care.

Comparison of the FreeStyle Libre Pro Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System and Point-of-Care Capillary Glucose Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Pro continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and point-of-care capillary glucose testing (POC) among insulin-treated hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective study in adult patients with T2D admitted to general medicine and surgery wards. Patients were monitored with POC before meals and bedtime and with CGM during the hospital stay. Study end points included differences between POC and CGM in mean daily blood glucose (BG), hypoglycemia <70 and <54 mg/dL, and nocturnal hypoglycemia. We also calculated the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), ±15%/15 mg/dL, ±20%/20 mg/dL, and ±30%/30 mg/dL and error grid analysis between matched glucose pairs. RESULTS: Mean daily glucose was significantly higher by POC (188.9 ± 37.3 vs. 176.1 ± 46.9 mg/dL) with an estimated mean difference of 12.8 mg/dL (95% CI 8.3-17.2 mg/dL), and proportions of patients with glucose readings <70 mg/dL (14% vs. 56%) and <54 mg/dL (4.1% vs. 36%) detected by POC BG were significantly lower compared with CGM (all P < 0.001). Nocturnal and prolonged CGM hypoglycemia <54 mg/dL were 26% and 12%, respectively. The overall MARD was 14.8%, ranging between 11.4% and 16.7% for glucose values between 70 and 250 mg/dL and higher for 51-69 mg/dL (MARD 28.0%). The percentages of glucose readings within ±15%/15 mg/dL, ±20%/20 mg/dL, and ±30%/30 mg/dL were 62%, 76%, and 91%, respectively. Error grid analysis showed 98.8% of glucose pairs within zones A and B. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with POC, FreeStyle Libre CGM showed lower mean daily glucose and higher detection of hypoglycemic events, particularly nocturnal and prolonged hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with T2D. CGM's accuracy was lower in the hypoglycemic range.