Blood glucose control using a computer-guided glucose management system in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Review of Intravenous and Subcutaneous Electronic Glucose Management Systems for Inpatient Glycemic Control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to summarize current literature on electronic glucose management systems (eGMS) and discuss their benefits and disadvantages in the inpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review different versions of commercially available eGMS: Glucommander™ (Glytec, Greenville, SC), EndoTool^R (MD Scientific LLC, Charlotte, NC), GlucoStabilizer™ (Medical Decision Network, Charlottesville, VA), GlucoCare™ (Pronia Medical Systems, KY), and discuss advantages such as reducing rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glycemic variability. In addition, eCGMs offer a uniform standard of care and may improve workflows across institutions as well reduce barriers. Despite ample literature on intravenous (IV) versions of eGMS, there is little published research on subcutaneous (SQ) insulin guidance. Although use of eGMS requires extensive training and institution-wide adoption, time spent on diabetes management is better facilitated by their use.

Trajectories of Fasting Blood Glucose in Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Patients who receive autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for the treatment of hematologic malignancies are at risk of serious adverse outcomes including infections and death. Hyperglycemia following the HCT is associated with increased risk of these adverse outcomes. However, limited information is available on demographic and clinical characteristics that contribute to changes in blood glucose levels following HCT.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the trajectories of fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels as well as the demographic and clinical characteristics that predicted interindividual differences in these FBG trajectories.

METHODS

A sample of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who were scheduled to receive autologous HCT (n = 53) was enrolled in the study. Patients with preexisting diabetes were excluded. Demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted from electronic medical records. Morning fasting laboratory tests (ie, FBG and absolute neutrophil counts) were obtained. Data were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling from the day of HCT (day 0) through 14 days post-HCT.

RESULTS

Among 8 characteristics evaluated, pre-HCT FBG was associated with variability in both the initial levels and the trajectories of FBG. Body mass index was only associated with initial levels of FBG.

CONCLUSIONS

The large amount of interindividual variability in the trajectories of FBG levels following autologous HCT suggests that glucose control in these patients warrants ongoing assessments and preemptive tailoring.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Fasting blood glucose monitoring is warranted. Additional research with larger samples is warranted to identify additional modifiable and nonmodifiable characteristics associated with interindividual variability in FBG levels.

Common Models Used for Inpatient Diabetes Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes affects about a third of all hospitalized patients and up to 50% of inpatients go on to experience hyperglycemia. Despite strong evidence supporting the importance of adequate glycemic control, as well detailed guidelines from major national organizations, many patients continue to have hypo- and hyperglycemia during their hospital stay. While this may be partially related to provider and patient-specific factors, system-based barriers continue to pose a major obstacle. Therefore, there is a need to go beyond merely discussing specific insulin protocols and provide guidance for effective models of care in the acute glycemic management of hospitalized patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, there is limited data evaluating the various models of care for inpatient diabetes management in terms of efficacy or cost, and there is no summary on this topic guiding physicians and hospital administrators. In this paper, four common models of inpatient diabetes care will be presented including those models led by the following: an endocrinologist(s), mid-level provider(s), pharmacist(s), and a virtual glucose management team. The authors will outline the intrinsic benefits as well as limitations of each model of care as well as cite supporting evidence, when available. Discussion pertaining to how a given model of care shapes and formulates a particular organization's structured glucose management program (GMP) will be examined. Furthermore, the authors describe how the model of care chosen by an institution serves as the foundation for the creation of a GMP. Finally, the authors examine the critical factors needed for GMP success within an institution and outline the nature of hospital administrative support and accompanying reporting structure, the function of a multidisciplinary diabetes steering committee, and the role of the medical director.

Risk of Hypoglycemia During Insulin Infusion Directed by Paper Protocol Versus Electronic Glycemic Management System in Critically Ill Patients at a Large Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Insulin infusions are commonly utilized to control hyperglycemia in critically ill patients and decrease hyperglycemia associated complications. Safety concerns have been raised in trials evaluating methods of glycemic control regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia and its relationship to increased mortality. Electronic glycemic management systems (eGMS) may result in less variable blood glucose (BG) control and less hypoglycemia. This study aimed to compare BG control, time in target BG range, and the rate of hypoglycemia when critically ill patients were managed with an insulin infusion guided by paper-based protocol (PBP) versus eGMS.

METHODS

This retrospective review compared critically ill patients ≥ 18 years old that received insulin infusion from March to May 2015 (PBP group) and October to January 2017 (eGMS group). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included frequency and severity of hypoglycemia, duration in glycemic target, length of insulin therapy, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were evaluated, 27 in each group. Percentage of days with BG <70 mg/dL was significantly reduced after eGMS implementation (21.5% v 1.3%, P < .0001) including the frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) (5.4% v 0.01%, P < .0001). Patients in the eGMS group spent a greater amount of time in target BG range (31.5% v 63.7%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An eGMS has the potential to address many of the unmet needs of an optimal glycemic control strategy, minimizing hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability in a heterogeneous critically ill population.

A multi-center prospective study randomizing the use of fat emulsion in intensive glucose control after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using a myeloablative conditioning regimen

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although parenteral nutrition (PN) is often used after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), there is controversy regarding PN management, for instance in the use of fat emulsion and glucose control (GC). To clarify these issues, we conducted a multi-center prospective study with intensive GC, randomizing the use of fat emulsion after allo-HSCT using a myeloablative conditioning regimen.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of documented infectious disease, namely bacterial and fungal infection, at day 100 after allo-HSCT. Between August 2007 and March 2012, we enrolled 81 patients at 5 centers. Excluding 5 ineligible patients, 76 patients received the protocol treatment. The target fasting glucose level was 80-110 mg/dL.

RESULTS

The median follow-up of surviving patients was 1796 days. The cumulative incidences of documented infectious disease at day 100 were 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6-29%) in the no-fat group and 19% (95% CI 8-32%) in the fat group, indicating no significant difference. The mean glucose level at 28 days after allo-HSCT was 107 mg/dL in the no-fat group and 111 mg/dL in the fat group. Grade 3 hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL) and grade 3 hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) occurred in 4 patients each (5.3%). Overall survival and non-relapse mortality rates at 4 years were 75% and 11% in the no-fat group and 69% and 8% in the fat group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the use of fat emulsion, the long-term clinical outcomes of the enrolled patients were favorable under intensive GC. To further clarify the benefits of GC after allo-HSCT, a prospective study randomizing the level of GC is warranted.

Analysis of "Comparison an Electronic Glycemic Management System Versus Provider Managed Subcutaneous Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in the Hospital Setting"

Safety and efficacy of a nurse-directed electronic glycemic management system (eGMS) in comparison to basal-bolus subcutaneous insulin therapy managed by providers has been evaluated recently by Aloi et al. They included 993 non-critically ill patients across 9 different hospitals in a retrospective observational crossover study and compared mean blood glucose, number of hypoglycemic events <40 mg/dl and <70 mg/dl and the percentage of blood glucose in target (140-180 mg/dl) before, during and after the use of eGMS. Conclusion was that eGMS can lead to better glycemic control with less hypoglycemic events compared to provider managed basal-bolus insulin therapy (before and after eGMS). Although some limitations exist, the authors made a strong case that eGMS has positive impact on glycemic control in hospitalized patients with diabetes.