The management reporting and assessment of glycemic control lacks standardization. The use of different methods to measure the blood glucose concentration and to report the performance of insulin treatment yields major disparities and complicates the interpretation and comparison of clinical trials. We convened a meeting of 16 experts plus invited observers from industry to discuss and where possible reach consensus on the most appropriate methods to measure and monitor blood glucose in critically ill patients and on how glycemic control should be assessed and reported. Where consensus could not be reached, recommendations on further research and data needed to reach consensus in the future were suggested. Recognizing their clear conflict of interest, industry observers played no role in developing the consensus or recommendations from the meeting. Consensus recommendations were agreed for the measurement and reporting of glycemic control in clinical trials and for the measurement of blood glucose in clinical practice. Recommendations covered the following areas: How should we measure and report glucose control when intermittent blood glucose measurements are used? What are the appropriate performance standards for intermittent blood glucose monitors in the ICU? Continuous or automated intermittent glucose monitoring - methods and technology: can we use the same measures for assessment of glucose control with continuous and intermittent monitoring? What is acceptable performance for continuous glucose monitoring systems? If implemented, these recommendations have the potential to minimize the discrepancies in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and to improve glucose control in clinical practice. Furthermore, to be fit for use, glucose meters and continuous monitoring systems must match their performance to fit the needs of patients and clinicians in the intensive care setting. See related commentary by Soto-Rivera and Agus, http://ccforum.com/content/17/3/155

Background: Circadian (diurnal) rhythm is an integral part of the physiology of the body; specifically, sleep, feeding behavior and metabolism are tightly linked to the light-dark cycle dictated by earth's rotation.Methods: The present study examines the effect of diurnal rhythm on gene expression in the subcutaneous adipose tissue of overweight to mildly obese, healthy individuals. In this well-controlled clinical study, adipose biopsies were taken in the morning, afternoon and evening from individuals in three study arms: treatment with the weight loss drug sibutramine/fasted, placebo/fed and placebo/fasted.Results: The results indicated that diurnal rhythm was the most significant driver of gene expression variation in the human adipose tissue, with at least 25% of the genes having had significant changes in their expression levels during the course of the day. The mRNA expression levels of core clock genes at a specific time of day were consistent across multiple subjects on different days in all three arms, indicating robust diurnal regulation irrespective of potential confounding factors. The genes essential for energy metabolism and tissue physiology were part of the diurnal signature. We hypothesize that the diurnal transition of the expression of energy metabolism genes reflects the shift in the adipose tissue from an energy-expending state in the morning to an energy-storing state in the evening. Consistent with this hypothesis, the diurnal transition was delayed by fasting and treatment with sibutramine. Finally, anin silicocomparison of the diurnal signature with data from the publicly-available Connectivity Map demonstrated a significant association with transcripts that were repressed by mTOR inhibitors, suggesting a possible link between mTOR signaling, diurnal gene expression and metabolic regulation.Conclusion: Diurnal rhythm plays an important role in the physiology and regulation of energy metabolism in the adipose tissue and should be considered in the selection of novel targets for the treatment of obesity and other metabolic disorders.

Achieving adequate glucose control in critically ill patients is a complex but important part of optimal patient management. Until relatively recently, intermittent measurements of blood glucose have been the only means of monitoring blood glucose levels. With growing interest in the possible beneficial effects of continuous over intermittent monitoring and the development of several continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, a round table conference was convened to discuss and, where possible, reach consensus on the various aspects related to glucose monitoring and management using these systems. In this report, we discuss the advantages and limitations of the different types of devices available, the potential advantages of continuous over intermittent testing, the relative importance of trend and point accuracy, the standards necessary for reporting results in clinical trials and for recognition by official bodies, and the changes that may be needed in current glucose management protocols as a result of a move towards increased use of CGM. We close with a list of the research priorities in this field, which will be necessary if CGM is to become a routine part of daily practice in the management of critically ill patients.

The article published by Kevin Cowart in this issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a detailed overview of the clinical trial data and analysis used to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the Eversense continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) System for regulatory approval and clinical acceptance. The article describes the published study results for safety, accuracy, reliability, ease of insertion/removal, adverse events, and ease of diabetes patient-use for controlling their glucose levels short and long term. The author nicely compares Eversense CGM System safety and performance with the short-term subcutaneous tissue CGM systems being commercialized by Dexcom, Medtronic Diabetes, and Abbott Diabetes. This comparison may help the clinician define which type of patient with diabetes might benefit the most from the long-term implantable CGM system. The majority of studied patients describe a positive experience managing their diabetes with the Eversense CGM System and request implantation of a new sensor 90 or 180 days later.

Background: New consumer health devices are being developed to easily monitor multiple physiological parameters on a regular basis. Many of these vital sign measurement devices have yet to be formally studied in a clinical setting but have already spread widely throughout the consumer market. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements of 2 novel all-in-one monitoring devices, the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor and the Everlast smartwatch. Methods: We enrolled 127 patients (>18 years) from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Preadmission Testing Center. SBP and HR were measured by both investigational devices. In addition, the Everlast watch was utilized to measure DBP, and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor was utilized to measure SpO2. After 5 min of quiet sitting, four hospital-grade standard and three investigational vital sign measurements were taken, with 60 seconds in between each measurement. The reference vital sign measurements were calculated by determining the average of the two standard measurements that bounded each investigational measurement. Using this method, we determined three comparison pairs for each investigational device in each subject. After excluding data from 42 individuals because of excessive variation in sequential standard measurements per prespecified dropping rules, data from 85 subjects were used for final analysis. Results: Of 85 participants, 36 (42%) were women, and the mean age was 53 (SD 21) years. The accuracy guidelines were only met for the HR measurements in both devices. SBP measurements deviated 16.9 (SD 13.5) mm Hg and 5.3 (SD 4.7) mm Hg from the reference values for the Everlast and BodiMetrics devices, respectively. The mean absolute difference in DBP measurements for the Everlast smartwatch was 8.3 (SD 6.1) mm Hg. The mean absolute difference between BodiMetrics and reference SpO2 measurements was 3.02%. Conclusions: Both devices we investigated met accuracy guidelines for HR measurements, but they failed to meet the predefined accuracy guidelines for other vital sign measurements. Continued sale of consumer physiological monitors without prior validation and approval procedures is a public health concern.