Skip to main content
Download PDF

Recommendations on the use of the flash continuous glucose monitoring system in hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 16, Article number: 128 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Continuous glucose monitoring can improve glycemic control for hospitalized patients with diabetes, according to current evidence. However, there is a lack of consensus-established recommendations for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes using flash continuous glucose monitoring system (fCGM) in Latin America. Therefore, this expert consensus exercise aimed to establish guidelines on the implementation of fCGM in the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America.

Methods

The modified Delphi method was applied on a panel of nine specialists, establishing consensus at 80%. A twenty-two-question instrument was developed to establish recommendations on the use of fCGM in hospitalized patients living with diabetes.

Results

Based on consensus, experts recommend the use of fCGM in hospitalized patients with diabetes starting at admission or whenever hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/dl) is confirmed and continue monitoring throughout the entire hospital stay. The recommended frequency of fCGM scans varies depending on the patient's age and diabetes type: ten scans per day for pediatric patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, adult patients with type 1 diabetes and pregnant patients, and seven scans for adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Different hospital services can benefit from fCGM, including the emergency room, internal medicine departments, intensive care units, surgery rooms, and surgery wards.

Conclusions

The use of fCGM is recommended for patients with diabetes starting at the time of admission in hospitals in Latin America, whenever the necessary resources (devices, education, personnel) are available.

Introduction

Patients diagnosed with diabetes have a higher risk of complications and hospitalizations [1]. Hospital length-of-stay in patients with diabetes are longer than those without diabetes and more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) [2]. Furthermore, patients with hyperglycemia have an associated increased mortality risk [3].

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides frequent measurements of interstitial glucose levels, as well as information on the direction and magnitude of glucose trends. The use of CGM has demonstrated to decrease blood glucose excursions, lower HbA1c values, and reduce hypoglycemic episodes, which together diminish the risk of complications associated with diabetes. In addition, use of CGM helps in reducing glucose variability [4,5,6,7].

In hospital settings, the integration of a CGM system into a glucose telemetry system has demonstrated a reduction on the risk of inpatient hypoglycemia, particularly recurrent hypoglycemic events [8, 9].

There are two basic types of CGM devices. The first type includes those that are owned by the user, unblinded, and intended for frequent or continuous use, including real-time CGM (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM). The second type is professional CGM devices that are owned by practices and applied in the clinic, which provide data that are blinded or unblinded for a discrete period of time. The types of sensors currently available are either disposable (rtCGM and isCGM) or implantable (rtCGM). One specific isCGM device (Freestyle Libre 2) and three specific rtCGM devices (Dexcom G6, Dexcom G7, and FreeStyle Libre 3) have been designated integrated CGM devices [8].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare institutions incorporated CGM to manage diabetes in patients, reducing the burden of inpatient care and minimizing direct contact between healthcare professionals and patients [10].

However, clinical evidence and recommendations on the management of glycemia with flash glucose monitoring (fCGM) in hospitalized patients living with diabetes is scarce.

The objective of the present work is to provide recommendations on therapeutic goals and the management of patients with diabetes using the fCGM on a hospital setting.

Methods

A systematic review of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) and consensus guidelines for hospitalized patients with diabetes was conducted. This review involved an exhaustive search of various medical databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, to identify relevant guidelines published in the last ten years. The search terms included “diabetes,” “hospitalized patients,” “clinical practice guidelines,” and “consensus guidelines.” Inclusion criteria were established to select guidelines specifically addressing the management of diabetes in a hospital setting [1, 4, 8, 11].

Following the systematic review, a multidisciplinary committee was formed to develop a checklist of relevant aspects derived from the identified guidelines. The committee included endocrinologists, diabetologists and internal medicine physicians. The formation and composition of the committee ensured a comprehensive perspective on the essential elements of diabetes care in hospitalized patients.

Afterwards, the modified Delphi panel method was applied to obtain consensus and recommendations related to glucose monitoring and follow-up of hospitalized patients with diabetes. The Delphi method is a prospective research alternative to obtain a reliable consensus on expert opinions. After rounds of discussions, the committee arrived at final statements and a rating was assigned by every member to each statement [1, 6, 12, 13].

The consensus meeting was held with a group of nine experts, including endocrinologists, pediatric endocrinologists and internal medicine physicians, with expertise in management of pediatric and adult patients with diabetes in a hospital setting, with public and/or private inter-institutional experience.

The instrument consisted of 22 questions evaluating perception through numeric scales and classifying their agreement with statements related to management goals and use of the fCGM in a hospital setting. This final aspect was assessed for pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a hospital setting.

A priori consensus was established at 80%, considering that the Delphi panel was performed during an in-person session, once the first section of the instrument was covered, a quality-control analysis of the data was performed followed by descriptive statistical analysis using central tendency and dispersion metrics and stack classification to identify perception tendencies of the attributes evaluated semiquantitative and qualitatively in free lists.

Results

Based on the consensus building exercise, we stablish the following recommendations of fCGM in the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America.

  1. a.

    Glycemic targets for in-hospital management

Recommendations:

  1. 1.

    Up to 86% of panelists agreed with ADA criteria on glycemic control objectives [8].

  2. 2.

    In hospitalized pediatric patients with T1DM and T2DM, and adults with T1DM; the recommendation was for an average of seven evaluations of point-of-care capillary glucose (POC BG) a day, and 4 POC BG for adults with T2DM. For pregnant patients with T2DM, eight evaluations POC BG should be the average and the minimum for those living with T1DM (Consensus: 100%).

  1. b.

    Management goals

fCGM allows for frequent glucose monitoring that allow the evaluation on the effects of treatment modifications, diet and exercise have on glucose levels. Also, is especially important to monitor for and prevent hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes [8, 11, 14].

Recommendations

  1. 1.

    It is recommended that the target glucose range for both critically ill and noncritically ill patients should be between 140–180 mg/dl. For some patients, more strict goals of 110–140 mg/dl may be necessary, as long as it can be achieved without causing significant hypoglycemia. (Consensus:100% consensus).

  1. c.

    Candidates for glycemic control through fCGM

Patient characteristics and scenarios where the use of fCGM should be recommended were discussed by diabetes type and age group, clinical benefits where the panel reached consensus are listed in Table 1 [8].

Table 1 Clinical benefits on the use of fCGM
Full size table

fCGM inpatient management recommendations

Patients with T1DM

  1. 1.

    The choice of fCGM device should be tailored to the individual patient’s needs, preferences, and clinical conditions. However, it is equally important to consider the healthcare staff's familiarity with the device, the ease of use, and the level of training required to effectively manage and interpret fCGM data (100% consensus).

  2. 2.

    Device selection should be through a shared decision-making process to identify the most appropriate device (100% consensus).

Patients with T2DM

  1. 1.

    fCGM should be recommended in patients managed with basal bolus insulin regimen, recurrent or severe hypoglycemia, and those who have a condition or disability (including learning disabilities or cognitive impairment) where self-management and glucose monitoring cannot be performed by themselves through capillary glucose evaluations (100% consensus).

  1. d.

    Considerations for glycemic management using fCGM in the hospital

The panel discussed all hospital settings and patient types where fCGM recommendations should be considered and special considerations when evaluating fCGM use. All scenarios where the panel reached 100% consensus were included (Table 2).

Table 2 Candidate considerations in hospital settings and considerations prior to utilization (Consensus:100%)
Full size table
  1. e.

    fCGM management in hospital setting

fCGM in hospital settings recommendations

  1. 1.

    When possible, fCGM should be performed alongside traditional capillary glucose monitoring (100% consensus).

  2. 2.

    Nursing staff should be in charge of data collection of hospitalized patients (patient identification information, vital signs, glycemic data, clinical status. medications), preferably in a registration sheet at least every 8 h (100% consensus).

  3. 3.

    In pediatric patients with T1DM and T2DM, a minimum of nine fCGM scans a day are recommended, ten for adults with T1DM, seven for adults with T2DM and ten for pregnant patients (100% consensus).

  4. 4.

    Independent of glycemic control, fCGM should start at the time of admission and during the entire hospital stay if resources are available. Other aspects to consider are: reason for hospitalization and complications. Data to be collected and interpreted is listed in Table 3 (100% consensus).

  5. 5.

    fCGM data should be evaluated by the medical team at least every 12 h, with more frequent evaluations as needed based on the patient's clinical status. Insulin dose adjustments must be performed accordingly to ensure optimal glycemic control (100% consensus).

  6. 6.

    Report analysis and treatment adjustment should be dynamic, with daily evaluations and record history development to provide datapoints for analysis of identified diabetes patients (100% consensus).

  7. 7.

    Scenarios to recommend fCGM in a hospital setting include patients with CGM prior to hospitalization, uncontrolled patients, those requiring therapeutic adjustments or presenting with hyper and hypoglycemia (100% consensus).

  8. 8.

    Hospital settings that could benefit from the use of fCGM include the emergency room, internal medicine, intensive care, maternity ward, surgery rooms and the surgery ward, especially in cases of elective surgery and non-critical care where it could improve detection of hypo and hyperglycemia episodes and hypoglycemia prevention (100% consensus).

  9. 9.

    Once the patient is discharged, if resources are available, the sensor can remain in place. Follow-up should be scheduled within 10 days to evaluate the ambulatory glucose profile or according to the sensor's life span, which is typically 14 days. (100% consensus).

Table 3 Data to evaluate through fCGM in hospitalized patients
Full size table

Additionally, glycemic control objectives recommendations were developed through the discussion and evaluation of published guidelines for hospitalized patients with diabetes. The recommendations where the panel reached consensus are displayed on Table 4.

Table 4 Hospitalization setting glycemic control goals
Full size table

POC BG is recommended to confirm before continuation of fCGM use in special scenarios (e.g., severe hypotension, after surgery, cardiac arrest, etc.); to confirm hypoglycemia and monitor recovery; as well as cases where symptoms do not match sensor glucose report or the reading seems unlikely in the circumstances (e.g., if symptoms of hypoglycemia are present but the sensor glucose reading is normal); if the sensor reading is unreliable or obviously erroneous (e.g., sensor does not display reading, or the trend arrow is absent) and during and after exercise [6].

It is possible to notice a difference between fCGM and POC BG. However, we consider a difference acceptable if it is within ± 20% of the absolute difference between fCGM and POC BG that are greater than 100 mg/dL, or within ± 20 mg/dL of the absolute difference between fCGM and POC BG if capillary blood glucosa is equal to or less than 100 mg/dL. This definition is based on the reference standard for integrated CGM devices, and it is known as %20/20 [15].

Discussion

The expert panel recommended the use of fCGM in hospital settings in patients with T1DM or T2DM, and, in pregnant women with a number of scans that ranges from 7 to 10 depending on patient type. Ambulatory use of fCGM systems have demonstrated improvements in glucose management and patient satisfaction, reduced fear of hypoglycemia, improved quality of life, and reduction of diabetic emergency hospitalizations [14].

Traditional glucose evaluations can overlook hyper and hypoglycemia during admission specially when asymptomatic [1]. A retrospective study on adult patients with T2DM compared the use of fCGM to capillary glucose monitoring. Outcomes were changes in acute diabetes-related events and all-cause inpatient hospitalizations, occurring during the first 6 months after acquiring the fCGM compared with event rates during the 6 months prior to system acquisition. Acquisition of the flash CGM system was associated with reductions in acute diabetes-related events and all-cause inpatient hospitalizations. Acute diabetes-related events rates decreased from 0.180 to 0.072 events/patient-year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.39 [0.30, 0.51]; P < 0.001) and all-cause inpatient hospitalizations rates decreased from 0.420 to 0.283 events/patient-year (HR: 0.68 [0.59 0.78]; P < 0.001) [14].

In a pilot study using fCGM in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a high rate of acceptance among patients was reported (80%). Percentage of time in hyperglycaemia exhibited statistically significant associations with both percentage of time in hypoglycaemia (p = 0.035) and percentage of time in range (p = 0.005), as well as with HbA1c (p = 0.004) and average glucose (p < 0.0001). Finally, the average glucose was also significantly associated with percentage of time in hypoglycaemia (p = 0.003), percentage of time in range (p = 0.01), and HbA1c (p = 0.046). These providing an innovative approach for hospitalized patients with diabetes in different scenarios where glucose control remains a key element of their management [16].

We recognized some limitations, including the lack of participation of nursing staff and diabetes educators. We, however, included several experts from different hospital settings and institutions, both public and private, with experience in the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Although recommendations have been published, in Latin America there are no specific guidelines for hospitalized patients with diabetes in which glycemic control objectives are evaluated. This highlights the need to update and reach consensus on some parameters that are useful and practical as clinical outcomes in inpatients. Therefore, after careful consideration of available evidence and considering the Latin American context through the incorporation of expert’s opinion, the present consensus recommends the use of fCGM in hospitalized patients with diabetes, as it allows more detailed glucose assessment and has the potential of reducing the length of hospital stays.

Conclusions

The expert panel recommends the use of fCGM for patients with diabetes starting at the time of admission and during the entire hospital in Latin America, whenever the necessary resources (devices, education, personnel) are available.

Expanding the use of fCGM could have the additional benefit of contributing valuable insight into glycemic parameters dynamics in different clinical scenarios within Latin American and improving diabetic care. There are new generations of fCGM that have additional features like alarms and real time transmission of glucose which could improve the management of these patients.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

ADA:

American Diabetes Association

AGP:

Ambulatory glucose profile

CPG:

Clinical practice guidelines

CGM:

Continuous glucose monitoring

A1c:

Glycated hemoglobin A1c

GV:

Glycemic variability

fCGM:

Intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring or flash continuous glucose monitoring

JBDS-IP:

Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care

RAND:

Research and Development Center

SMBG:

Self-monitoring blood glucose

TAR:

Time above range

TBR:

Time below range

TIR:

Time in range

T1DM:

Type I diabetes

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes

UCLA:

University of California in Los Angeles

References

  1. Avari P, Lumb A, Flanagan D, Rayman G, Misra S, Dhatariya K, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring within hospital: a scoping review and summary of guidelines from the joint British diabetes societies for inpatient care. J Diabet Sci Technol. 2023;17(3):611–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221137338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pérez AP, Gutiérrez PC, Diosdado MA, Martínez VB, Anuncibay PG, de Casasola GG, et al. Treatment of hyperglycemia in hospital settings. Med Clín. 2009;132(12):465–75.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Camacho-Saavedra LA. Hyperglycemia as a mortality prognosis factor in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Rev De La Soc Peru De Med Int. 2020;33(4):151–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zelada H, Perez-Guzman MC, Chernavvsky DR, Galindo RJ. Continuous glucose monitoring for inpatient diabetes management: an update on current evidence and practice. Endocr Conn. 2023;12(10): e230180. https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-23-0180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fortmann AL, Spierling Bagsic SR, Talavera L, Garcia IM, Sandoval H, Hottinger A, et al. Glucose as the fifth vital sign: a randomized controlled trial of continuous glucose monitoring in a non-ICU hospital setting. Diabet Care. 2020;43(11):2873–7. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-1016.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Galindo RJ, Migdal AL, Davis GM, Urrutia MA, Albury B, Zambrano C, et al. 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. Diabet Care. 2020;3(11):2730–5. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2073.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Spanakis EK, Urrutia A, Galindo RJ, Vellanki P, Migdal AL, Davis GM, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring-guided insulin administration in hospitalized patients with diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabet Care. 2020;45(10):2369–75. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0716.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. American Diabetes Association. Standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabet Care. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-S001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lawton J, Blackburn M, Allen J, Campbell F, Elleri D, Leelarathna L, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ experiences of using continuous glucose monitoring to support diabetes self-management: qualitative study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2018;18(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-018-0239-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Galindo RJ, Aleppo G, Klonoff DC, Spanakis EK, Agarwal S, Vellanki P, et al. Implementation of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: emergent considerations for remote glucose monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Diabet Sci Technol. 2020;14(4):822–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820932903.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Galindo RJ, Umpierrez GE, Rushakoff RJ, Basu A, Lohnes S, Nichols JH, et al. Continuous glucose monitors and automated insulin dosing systems in the hospital consensus guideline. J Diabet Sci Technol. 2020;14(6):1035–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820954163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martínez Sahuquillo Amuedo M, de Echevarria Ruiz Vargas M. Consensus methods adequate use of evidence in decision making RAND/UCLA method. Rehabilitación. 2001;35(6):388–92.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ávila CM. Delphi method in health. Hipertens Riesgo Vasc. 2015;32:12–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, Beck RW, Bissen J, Buckingham B, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP). Diabet Technol Ther. 2013;15(3):198–211. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Avari P, Lumb A, Flanagan D, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring within hospital: a scoping review and summary of guidelines from the joint British diabetes societies for inpatient care. J Diabet Sci Technol. 2023;17(3):611–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221137338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Robbins T, Hopper A, Brophy J, Pearson E, Suthantirakumar R, Vankad M, Igharo N, Baitule S, Clark CC, Arvanitis TN, Sankar S, Kyrou I, Randeva H. Digitally enabled flash glucose monitoring for inpatients with COVID-19: Feasibility and pilot implementation in a teaching NHS hospital in the UK. Digit Health. 2022;7(8):20552076211059350. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076211059350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Editorial assistance for the preparation of the present manuscript was provided by HS Estudios Farmacoeconómicos S.A. de C.V.

Funding

This work has been funded by Abbott Laboratories de México, S.A. de C.V.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

    Ana María Gómez & Diana Cristina Henao Carrillo

  2. Hospital San Juan De Dios La Plata, La Plata, Argentina

    Matías Alberto Ré

  3. Clínica EnDi, Centro Médico ABC, CDMX, Mexico

    Raquel N. Faradji

  4. TEC Salud Monterrey NL, Monterrey, Mexico

    Oscar Flores Caloca

  5. CEMEDIN, Monterrey, Mexico

    Natalia Eloísa de la Garza Hernández

  6. Centro Médico ABC Santa Fe, CDMX, Mexico

    Carlos Antillón Ferreira

  7. Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, ISSSTE, CDMX, Mexico

    Juan C. Garnica-Cuéllar

  8. Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes, São Paulo, Brazil

    Marcio Krakauer

  9. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, USA

    Rodolfo J. Galindo

Authors
  1. Ana María Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana Cristina Henao Carrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matías Alberto Ré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raquel N. Faradji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oscar Flores Caloca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Natalia Eloísa de la Garza Hernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carlos Antillón Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Juan C. Garnica-Cuéllar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marcio Krakauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Rodolfo J. Galindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper. All authors have contributed significantly to the conception, design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data. All authors have participated in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript and have approved its submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana María Gómez.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Rodolfo J. Galindo is partially supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Numbers P30DK111024, K23DK123384 and R03DK138255-01. RJG received research support to Emory University for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk, Dexcom and Eli Lilly and consulting/advisory/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Dexcom, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Boehringer. Marcio Krakauer has received grants from and participated in Advisory Boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biomm, Boehringer, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, MSD, Novo Nordisk, P&G Health, Roche, and Sanofi. Raquel N. Faradji has served as an Advisory Board Member for Abbott. Juan C. Garnica Cuellar has been a speaker for Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer and AstraZeneca. Ana María Gómez has been a speaker for Abbott, Medtronic, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca. Diana Cristina Henao Carrillo has received economic compensations as a speaker for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Abbott. Natalia de la Garza has been a speaker for Medtronic, Sanofi, BI, Eli Lilly and Abbott. Matías Ré has been speaker for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche and Sanofi. Carlos Antillón Ferreira has been a speaker for Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, Roche, Asofarma, Sandoz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gómez, A.M., Henao Carrillo, D.C., Ré, M.A. et al. Recommendations on the use of the flash continuous glucose monitoring system in hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America. Diabetol Metab Syndr 16, 128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01362-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-024-01362-4

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us