A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures

Dexamethasone, Glycemic Control, and Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Elective, Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

Background

Dexamethasone (DEX) has been shown to reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty (TJA). We investigated the impact of DEX on glycemic control and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing elective primary TJA.

Methods

All patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing primary elective TJA between January 2016 and December 2021 at 4 sites within 1 hospital system were identified. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients receiving or not receiving DEX. Primary outcomes were perioperative blood glucose levels and the incidence of hyperglycemia. Secondary outcomes were the amount of insulin administered, the occurrence of 30-day postoperative surgical site infections, hospital readmission, and mortality.

Results

After matching, we identified 1372 patients. DEX administration was associated with a significant increase in mean blood glucose levels in mg/dL on postoperative days (PODs) 0 to 2: POD 0 (28.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.6-32.1), POD 1 (14.4, 95% CI: 10.1-18.8), POD 2 (12.4, 95% CI: 7.5-17.2) when comparing patients who did or did not receive DEX. Additionally, patients receiving DEX, compared to patients who did not receive DEX, had increased odds of experiencing hyperglycemia on POD 0 (odds ratio: 4.0, 95% CI: 3.1-5.2). DEX was not associated with a significant difference in insulin administration, surgical site infections, hospital readmission, or mortality.

Conclusions

In our review of 1372 patients with propensity-matched type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing elective, primary TJA, we found that DEX administration was associated with an increased risk of elevated mean glucose on POD 0-2, hyperglycemia on POD 0, but was not associated with an increase in total insulin dose administered nor occurrence of surgical site infections, hospital readmission, or mortality within 30 days of surgery in patients who received DEX compared to patients who did not receive DEX.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Prandial Insulins: A Person-Centered Choice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postprandial hyperglycemia, or elevated blood glucose after meals, is associated with the development and progression of various diabetes-related complications. Prandial insulins are designed to replicate the natural insulin release after meals and are highly effective in managing post-meal glucose spikes. Currently, different types of prandial insulins are available such as human regular insulin, rapid-acting analogs, ultra-rapid-acting analogs, and inhaled insulins. Knowledge about diverse landscape of prandial insulin will optimize glycemic management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human regular insulin, identical to insulin produced by the human pancreas, has a slower onset and extended duration, potentially leading to post-meal hyperglycemia and later hypoglycemia. In contrast, rapid-acting analogs, such as lispro, aspart, and glulisine, are new insulin types with amino acid modifications that enhance their subcutaneous absorption, resulting in a faster onset and shorter action duration. Ultra-rapid analogs, like faster aspart and ultra-rapid lispro, offer even shorter onset of action, providing better meal-time flexibility. The Technosphere insulin offers an inhaled route for prandial insulin delivery. The prandial insulins can be incorporated into basal-bolus, basal plus, or prandial-only regimens or delivered through insulin pumps. Human regular insulin, aspart, lispro, and faster aspart are recommended for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Ongoing research is focused on refining prandial insulin replacement and exploring newer delivery methods. The article provides a comprehensive overview of various prandial insulin options and their clinical applications in the management of diabetes.

Association between continued metformin use during hospital admission and hospital-acquired complications

AIMS

The safety of continuing metformin during a hospital admission has not been robustly demonstrated. We evaluated the association of continuing metformin in hospital with the risk for a hospital-acquired complication (HAC).

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of patients admitted to a medical or surgical ward. We considered those with diabetes who continued metformin (DM/MET group), those who discontinued metformin upon admission (DM/MET-STOP), and those with diabetes not on metformin just prior to and during admission (DM/NoMET). We prepared propensity score-matched (PSM) control groups from admitted patients without diabetes. The likelihood of a HAC was determined using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model was employed to calculate the hazard ratio, adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

Of the 4446 (14%) patients with diabetes, 3331 (10%) were prescribed metformin on admission, and it was continued in 2557 patients. HAC occurred in 5.5% of DM/MET group and 6.4% of the PSM control group. Continuation of metformin was associated with a lower likelihood of HAC, adjusted hazard ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.69, 1.04), p = 0.117 compared to a PSM-matched control group without diabetes. The DM/NoMET and DM/MET-STOP groups had an increased risk for HAC, adjusted HR 1.77 (1.44, 2.18), p < 0.001 and 2.57 (2.10, 3.13), p < 0.001, as compared to their respective PSM control groups.

CONCLUSION

An individualized assessment to continue metformin during hospital admission was associated with a reduced likelihood of HAC, with the caveat that there was limited matching to non-diabetes controls. This finding warrants further exploration.

Summary of clinical investigation plan for The DIATEC trial: in-hospital diabetes management by a diabetes team and continuous glucose monitoring or point of care glucose testing - a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing.

METHODS

This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number NCT05803473 on March 27th 2023.

Improving inpatient hyperglycaemia in non-critically ill adults in resident wards through audit and feedback

Inpatient hyperglycaemia is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality, number of rehospitalisations and length of hospitalisation. Although the advantages of proper glycaemic control in hospitalised patients with diabetes are well established, a variety of barriers limit accomplishment of blood glucose targets. Our primary aim was to decrease the number of glucose values above 180 mg/dL in non-critical care hospitalised patients using an audit and feedback intervention with pharmacy and internal medicine residents. A resident-led multidisciplinary team implemented the quality improvement (QI) project including conception, literature review, educating residents, iterative development of audit and feedback tools and data analysis. The multidisciplinary team met every 5 weeks and undertook three 'plan-do-study-act' cycles over an 8-month intervention period (August 2022 to March 2023) to educate residents on inpatient hyperglycaemia management, develop and implement an audit and feedback process and assess areas for improvement. We performed 1045 audits analysing 16 095 accu-checks on 395 non-duplicated patients. Most audits showed compliance with guidelines. The monthly run-on chart shows per cent of glucose values above 180 mg/dL in our non-ICU hospitalised patients and an overall pre-to-post comparison of 25.1%-23.0% (p value<0.05). The intervention was well accepted by residents evidenced by survey results. We did not meet our primary aim to reduce hyperglycaemia by 30% and this combined with the audits showing mostly compliance with guidelines suggests that prescribing behaviour was not a key driver of inpatient hyperglycaemia in our population. This internal medicine resident and pharmacy interprofessional collaboration with audit and feedback for inpatient hyperglycaemia was feasible, well accepted and had a statistically significant yet small improvement in inpatient hyperglycaemia. The project may be helpful to others wishing to explore inpatient hyperglycaemia, interprofessional QI with pharmacists, resident-led QI and audit and feedback.

[Non-Insulin Antidiabetic Agents in the Management of Hyperglycaemia of Non-Critical Hospitalized Patients]

Hyperglycaemia affects more than 30% of adults hospitalized for non-critical illness and is associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Insulin therapy is widely used for its safety and efficacy. However, given the growing availability of new drugs and new classes of antidiabetic agents with benefits beyond glycaemic control, challenges arise regarding their use in the hospital setting. This article aims to review and summarize the most recently available evidence and recommendations on the role of non-insulin antidiabetic agents in the management of hyperglycaemia in hospitalized patients. Insulin therapy remains the method of choice. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors can be considered in mild to moderate hyperglycaemia. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists have recently shown promising results, with high efficacy in glycaemic control and low risk of hypoglycaemia. There are concerns regarding the increased risk of acidosis with metformin use, especially in cases of acute illness, although there is no evidence to support its suspension in selected patients with relative clinical stability. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors should be discontinued in clinical situations that may predispose to ketoacidosis, including episodes of acute illness. The hospital use of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones is not advised.

Glycemic Management in Insulin-Naive Patients in the Inpatient Setting

Objective

The ideal inpatient insulin regimen efficiently attains the target blood glucose range, effectively treats hyperglycemia, and minimizes the risk of hypoglycemia. The objective of this study was to compare glycemic targets achieved by using correctional monotherapy (CM) and basal-bolus therapy (BBT) in insulin-naive patients in the inpatient setting to determine optimal blood glucose management for these patients.

Design

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of 792 patients with diabetes not on home insulin therapy who were admitted to an academic hospital over a 5.5-month period. The percentages of hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic values in each group were compared.

Results

Among the 3,112 measured blood glucose values obtained from 792 patients within the first 24 hours of insulin administration, 28.5% were hyperglycemic in the BBT group compared with 23.5% in the CM group. When adjusted for covariates, there was a 23% decrease in hyperglycemia in the BBT group (incidence rate ratio = 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.95, P = 0.006). Increases in A1C and admission blood glucose, as well as decreases in admission creatinine and inpatient steroid use, were independently associated with higher rates of hyperglycemia, adjusted for all other covariates. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of hypoglycemia in the first 24 hours, which was 1.9% in the BBT group and 1.4% in the CM group (P = 0.301).

Conclusion

Utilizing BBT in insulin-naive patients admitted to the hospital within the first 24 hours of insulin administration results in lower rates of hyperglycemia without higher rates of hypoglycemia when compared with CM.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Accuracy and Potential Interferences of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors in the Hospital

For years, the standard of care for monitoring dysglycemia in hospitalized patients was capillary blood glucose (CBG) testing with point-of-care glucose meters. Recently, there has been a revolution in novel factory-calibrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Newer CGMs are smaller and less expensive, have improved accuracy and longer wear time, and do not require fingerstick CBG for calibration, resulting in increased utilization in ambulatory settings. Consequently, hospitals have noticed increased usability of CGMs among hospitalized patients and expect a progressive continued increase. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a critical need for innovative approaches to glycemic monitoring, with several pilot implementation projects using CGM in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care unit settings, further boosting the evidence in this area. Hence, recent guidelines have provided recommendations for the use of CGM in specific hospital scenarios and highlighted the potential of CGM to overcome CBG limitations for glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting. In this review, we provide the following: 1) an up-to-date review of the accuracy of the newer CGMs in hospitalized patients, 2) a discussion of standards for CGM accuracy metrics, 3) a contemporary overview of potential interferences that may cause inaccuracies or poor CGM performance, and 4) required steps for full regulatory approval of CGMs in the hospital and future research steps to advance the field forward.

Real-world Accuracy of CGM in Inpatient Critical and Noncritical Care Settings at a Safety-Net Hospital

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine real-world accuracy of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) at multiple levels of acuity in a large safety-net hospital.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed records from hospitalized patients on Dexcom G6 CGM, including clinical, point of care (POC), and laboratory (Lab) glucose, and CGM data. POC/Lab values were matched to the closest timed CGM value. Encounters were divided into not critically ill (NCI) versus critically ill (CI). CGM accuracy was evaluated.

RESULTS

Paired readings (2,744 POC-CGM; 3,705 Lab-CGM) were analyzed for 233 patients with 239 encounters (83 NCI, 156 CI). POC-CGM aggregated and average mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were 15.1% and 17.1%. Lab-CGM aggregated and average MARDs were 11.4% and 12.2%. Accuracy for POC-CGM and Lab-CGM was 96.5% and 99.1% in Clarke Error Grid zones A/B.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world accuracy of inpatient CGM is acceptable for NCI and CI patients. Further exploration of conditions associated with lower CGM accuracy in real-world settings is warranted.

PeRiOperative Glucose PRAgMatic (PROGRAM) trial protocol and statistical analysis plan for comparing automated intraoperative reminders to standardise insulin administration in surgical patients at high risk of hyperglycaemia

INTRODUCTION

Studies finding perioperative hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse patient outcomes in surgical procedures spurred the development of blood glucose guidelines at many institutions. In this trial, we will assess the implementation of a clinical decision support tool that is integrated into the intraoperative portion of our electronic health record and provides real-time best practice recommendations for intraoperative insulin dosing in surgical patients at high risk for hyperglycaemia.

METHODS AND DESIGN

We will assess this intervention using a sequential and repeated cross-over design at the institutional level with periods of time for wash-out, control and study intervention. The unit of analysis will be the surgical case. The primary outcome will be the frequency of hyperglycaemia (>180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L)) at first postoperative anaesthesia care unit measurement. There are several prespecified secondary analyses focused on perioperative glycaemic control.

DISCUSSION

This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes the methodology, primary and secondary analyses. The PeRiOperative Glucose PRAgMatic (PROGRAM) trial was approved by the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA (IRB, 220991). The study results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national scientific conferences. The results of PROGRAM trial will inform best practice for perioperative standardised insulin administration in surgical patients at high risk of hyperglycaemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05426096.

The Adverse Effects Profile of Teprotumumab

CONTEXT

Teprotumumab therapy for thyroid eye disease (TED) patients represents a major step forward. It targets and inhibits the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R), and its effectiveness is based on its interconnectedness with the thyrotropin receptor. However, IGF-1R has a ubiquitous expression and several adverse effects have been reported with teprotumumab use.

OBJECTIVE

Describing these adverse effects for better understanding is the purpose of this review.

METHODS

We reviewed the oncological studies in which teprotumumab was initially used. Subsequently we reviewed the clinical trials for TED and then the case series and case reports associated with teprotumumab use since it is US Food and Drug Administration approval (January 2020). We focused on common and/or serious adverse effects reported with the use of teprotumumab.

RESULTS

We described the common occurrence of hyperglycemia (10%-30% incidence), its risk factors and suggested management. Hearing changes are described, a broad spectrum from mild ear pressure to hearing loss (sensorineural mechanism). Risk factors, suggested monitoring, and possible upcoming therapies are reviewed. We also reviewed data on fatigue, muscle spasms, hair loss, weight loss, gastrointestinal disturbances, menstrual changes, and infusion reactions. We noted some discrepancies between adverse effects in oncological studies vs studies focused on TED, and we aimed to explain these differences.

CONCLUSION

The use of teprotumumab should consider patient's values and preferences in balancing the expected benefit with these potential risks. Future drugs targeting IGF-1R should investigate these adverse effects for a possible class effect. Combination therapies with different agents hopefully will be identified that maximize benefits and minimize risks.

Prescription appropriateness of anti-diabetes drugs in elderly patients hospitalized in a clinical setting: evidence from the REPOSI Register

Diabetes is an increasing global health burden with the highest prevalence (24.0%) observed in elderly people. Older diabetic adults have a greater risk of hospitalization and several geriatric syndromes than older nondiabetic adults. For these conditions, special care is required in prescribing therapies including anti- diabetes drugs. Aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness and the adherence to safety recommendations in the prescriptions of glucose-lowering drugs in hospitalized elderly patients with diabetes. Data for this cross-sectional study were obtained from the REgistro POliterapie-Società Italiana Medicina Interna (REPOSI) that collected clinical information on patients aged ≥ 65 years acutely admitted to Italian internal medicine and geriatric non-intensive care units (ICU) from 2010 up to 2019. Prescription appropriateness was assessed according to the 2019 AGS Beers Criteria and anti-diabetes drug data sheets.Among 5349 patients, 1624 (30.3%) had diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. At admission, 37.7% of diabetic patients received treatment with metformin, 37.3% insulin therapy, 16.4% sulfonylureas, and 11.4% glinides. Surprisingly, only 3.1% of diabetic patients were treated with new classes of anti- diabetes drugs. According to prescription criteria, at admission 15.4% of patients treated with metformin and 2.6% with sulfonylureas received inappropriately these treatments. At discharge, the inappropriateness of metformin therapy decreased (10.2%, P < 0.0001). According to Beers criteria, the inappropriate prescriptions of sulfonylureas raised to 29% both at admission and at discharge. This study shows a poor adherence to current guidelines on diabetes management in hospitalized elderly people with a high prevalence of inappropriate use of sulfonylureas according to the Beers criteria.

Gaps in our knowledge of managing inpatient dysglycaemia and diabetes in non-critically ill adults: A call for further research

AIMS

To describe the gaps in knowledge for the care of people in the hospital who have dysglycaemia or diabetes.

METHODS

A review of the current literature and the authors' knowledge of the subject.

RESULTS

Recent data has suggested that the prevalence of hospitalised people with diabetes is approximately three times the prevalence in the general population and is growing annually. A wealth of observational data over the last 4 decades has shown that people with hyperglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia or diabetes, all experience more harm whilst in the hospital than those who do not have the condition. This often equates to a longer length of stay and thus higher costs. To date, the proportion of federal funding aimed at addressing the harms that people with dysglycaemia experience in hospitals has been very small compared to outpatient studies. National organisations, such as the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care, the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society have produced guidelines or consensus statements on the management of various aspects of inpatient care. However, whilst a lot of these have been based on evidence, much remains based on expert opinion and thus low-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that inpatient diabetes is an underfunded and under-researched area.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.