Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) systems in the inpatient setting is considered investigational. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether RT-CGM, using the glucose telemetry system (GTS), can prevent hypoglycemia in the general wards. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a randomized clinical trial, insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia were recruited. Participants were randomized to RT-CGM/ GTS or point-of-care (POC) blood glucose testing. The primary outcome was difference in inpatient hypoglycemia. RESULTS Seventy-two participants were included in this interim analysis, 36 in the RT-CGM/ GTS group and 36 in the POC group. The RT-CGM/GTS group experienced fewer hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) per patient (0.67 [95% CI 0.34-1.30] vs. 1.69 [1.11-2.58], P 5 0.024), fewer clinically significant hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) per patient (0.

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 (&lt;70 mg/dL and &lt;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 &lt;70 mg/dL (36 vs. 39%; P = 0.68) or &lt;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 &lt;70 mg/dL (1.89 ± 3.27% vs. 5.47 ± 8.49%; P = 0.02), and lower incidence rate ratio &lt;70 mg/dL (0.53 [95% CI 0.31–0.92]) and &lt;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.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity are chronic medical conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Accurate macronutrient and energy estimation could be beneficial in attempts to manage DM and obesity, leading to improved glycemic control and weight reduction, respectively. Existing dietary assessment methods are subject to major errors in measurement, are time consuming, are costly, and do not provide real-time feedback. The increasing adoption of smartphones and artificial intelligence, along with the advances in algorithms and hardware, allowed the development of technologies executed in smartphones that use food/beverage multimedia data as an input, and output information about the nutrient content in almost real time. Scope of this review was to explore the various image-based and video-based systems designed for dietary assessment. We identified 22 different systems and divided these into three categories on the basis of their setting for evaluation: laboratory (12), preclinical (7), and clinical (3). The major findings of the review are that there is still a number of open research questions and technical challenges to be addressed and end users—including health care professionals and patients—need to be involved in the design and development of such innovative solutions. Last, there is a clear need that these systems should be validated under unconstrained real-life conditions and that they should be compared with conventional methods for dietary assessment.