Comparison of inpatient insulin regimens with detemir plus aspart versus neutral protamine hagedorn plus regular in medical patients with type 2 diabetes

Comparing Postprandial Glycemic Control Using Fiasp vs Insulin Aspart in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Basal-bolus insulin therapy is the treatment of choice for most patients. The efficacy of an ultrarapid vs rapid-acting insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes has not been evaluated. We assessed noninferiority in efficacy and safety of Fiasp vs aspart (Novolog) as part of a basal-bolus insulin regimen in noncritically ill patients with type 2 diabetes in a safety-net hospital.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomized trial included 137 patients with diabetes admitted to a non-intensive care unit setting. Subjects were treated with glargine at bedtime and either Fiasp or Novolog for prandial and correction insulin. Subjects were enrolled for a minimum of 4 or maximum of 6 meal boluses. Capillary blood glucose was used for insulin adjustment and a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro captured data for study analysis. The primary endpoint was time spent in sensor glucose range 100-180 mg/dL in the 4-hour postprandial period (assessed among 106 participants with ≥ 4 meals with a 4-hour postprandial period). Time spent in hypoglycemic ranges (<70, <54, <40 mg/dL) was assessed for safety.

RESULTS

Four-hour postprandial time in range 100-180 mg/dL was 45% in the Fiasp group vs 36% in the Novolog group (P = .012; meeting prespecified noninferiority criteria). Other glycemic metrics were similar between groups with no difference in time spent in hypoglycemic ranges.

CONCLUSION

Fiasp provides noninferior postprandial glucose control in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes when compared to Novolog with no increase in rates of hypoglycemia.

Randomized Study Comparing Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Capillary Glucose Testing in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes After Hospital Discharge

OBJECTIVE

The benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have been documented in observation and intervention clinical studies. However, the benefits of CGMs after hospital discharge in improving the care of patients with T2D remain unknown.

METHODS

This pilot randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of using the FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM vs capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose testing (standard of care) in insulin-treated patients with T2D for up to 12 weeks after hospital discharge. We assessed safety (hypoglycemia), efficacy (mean daily glucose), and healthcare utilization (emergency room visits and hospital admissions) associated with the use of FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM compared to capillary POC testing following hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Among 100 participants (mean age 54.3 ± 10.7 years, HbA1c 10.46 ± 2.24%, median diabetes duration of 9.0 years, IQR 1.0, 42), there were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between the groups at discharge. We observed a trend toward improved glycemic control in the CGM group, including increased time in range 70-180 mg/dl, reduced time above range > 180 and 250 mg/dl, and decreased hypoglycemia and insulin requirements after discharge compared to the POC group. There were no differences in emergency room visits or hospitalization between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study indicate that the use of CGM leads to improved glycemic control, reduced hypoglycemia, and decreased glucose variability compared to POC glucose testing after hospital discharge.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Step Forward in Inpatient Glycemic Control

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect and safety of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) use in glycemic control compared to standard approach in hospitalized patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This was a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled 37 hospitalized patients with T2D admitted in medical and surgical wards. All patients used CGM (Abbott FreeStyle2 or FreeStyle3) and concomitantly 6-point point of care glucose (POCG). In group A (n=19), daily CGM profiles, alarms, and trend arrows were considered for glycemic therapeutic decisions and in group B (n=18) were based on POCG. Primary outcomes included the difference in time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL, hospital glycemia risk index (GRI), time below range (TBR) measured as the percentage below 70 mg/dL and below 54 mg/dL, and time above range (TAR) measured as the percentage above 180 mg/dL and above 250 mg/dL.

RESULTS

TIR was higher in group A: 78.26±10.83% vs. 67.39±19.13% p=0.04. TAR level 1 in group A: 14.37±8.33% vs. group B: 23.28±16.62% p=0.04. Asymptomatic hypoglycemic events were more detected by CGM-group (1.65±2.03 vs. 0.31±0.60 p=0.01). Overall MARD: 14.7%. DTS Error Grid: 69.5% zone A and 29.3% zone B.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of CGM in hospitals could represent a significant advancement in diabetes management, offering a more comprehensive and dynamic approach to monitoring glucose levels. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of CGM on clinical outcomes and to optimize its integration into hospital protocols.

Screening and management of hospital hyperglycemia in non-critical patients: a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD)

BACKGROUND

Hospital Hyperglycemia (HH) is linked to poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, increased ICU admissions, and extended hospital stays, and occurs in both people living with diabetes or not. The prevalence of HH in non-critical patients ranges from 22 to 46%. This panel reviewed the evidence and made recommendations for the best care for hospitalized hyperglycemic patients, with or without diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The methodology was published previously and was defined by the internal institutional steering committee. The SBD Acute and Hospital Complications Department drafted the manuscript, selecting key clinical questions for a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed. The best available evidence was reviewed, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and high-quality observational studies related to Hospital Hyperglycemia.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The department members and external experts developed 23 recommendations for the management of patients with HH, including screening, initial interventions, treatment adjustments, and care for potential complications. Based on the best available evidence, our article provides safe and effective management strategies for both public and private healthcare settings.

Association Between Daily Insulin Dose Adjustments and Glycemic Control in Noncritically Ill Hospitalized Hyperglycemic Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of daily insulin dose increases in managing inpatient hyperglycemia.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients discharged from 2 urban academic medical centers and 3 large suburban community hospitals between 2015 and 2019 who received ≥10 units of basal insulin on any day. On hyperglycemic days (mean glucose ≥180 mg/dL), we categorized the relative insulin dose increases into 4 categories based on percentage changes from the previous day. We further subclassified these categories according to the average blood glucose (BG), total daily dose (TDD), and weight-based dosing quartiles. The primary goal was achieving an average BG of ≤160 mg/dL without subsequent hypoglycemia (≤70 mg/dL) on the following day.

RESULTS

From 25 186 hospital admissions, we collected data on 240 556 hospital days and 63 033 hyperglycemic index days. The median age was 64, with 53.4% being male and 52.1% White. The median BG level was 222.7 mg/dL. Type 2 diabetes was coded in 54.7%, while 36.3% lacked a diabetes code but received basal insulin. Insulin dose adjustments showed a strong correlation with glycemic control; specifically, a 44% to 100% increase in TDD was significantly more likely to achieve the primary outcome, compared to a TDD increase of 10% to 22%. This trend remained consistent across varied BG ranges and dosing categories.

CONCLUSION

More intensive insulin adjustments may be required for inpatient hyperglycemia compared to the typical 10% to 20% recommendation. Prospective studies are needed to validate and build upon these retrospective findings.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with basal-plus insulin regimen versus insulin alone in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: SITA-PLUS hospital trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal-plus (BP) insulin regimen with or without sitagliptin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This open-label, randomized clinical trial included inpatients with a previous diagnosis of T2D and blood glucose (BG) between 180 and 400 mg/dL. Participants received basal and correctional insulin doses (BP regimen) either with or without sitagliptin. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean daily BG among the groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients (mean age 60 years, 64 % men) were randomized. Compared with BP insulin therapy alone, the sitagliptin-BP combination led to a lower mean daily BG (158.8 vs 175.0 mg/dL, P = 0.014), a higher percentage of readings within a BG range of 70-180 mg/dL (75.9 % vs 64.7 %, P < 0.001), and a lower number of BG readings >180 mg/dL (P < 0.001). Sitagliptin-BP resulted in fewer basal and supplementary insulin doses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.017, respectively) and lower daily insulin injections (P = 0.023) than those with insulin alone. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For inpatients with T2D and hyperglycemia, the sitagliptin and BP regimen combination is safe and more effective than insulin therapy alone.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT05579119.

Optimized glycemic control of type 2 diabetes with reinforcement learning: a proof-of-concept trial

The personalized titration and optimization of insulin regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) are resource-demanding healthcare tasks. Here we propose a model-based reinforcement learning (RL) framework (called RL-DITR), which learns the optimal insulin regimen by analyzing glycemic state rewards through patient model interactions. When evaluated during the development phase for managing hospitalized patients with T2D, RL-DITR achieved superior insulin titration optimization (mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.10 ± 0.03 U) compared to other deep learning models and standard clinical methods. We performed a stepwise clinical validation of the artificial intelligence system from simulation to deployment, demonstrating better performance in glycemic control in inpatients compared to junior and intermediate-level physicians through quantitative (MAE of 1.18 ± 0.09 U) and qualitative metrics from a blinded review. Additionally, we conducted a single-arm, patient-blinded, proof-of-concept feasibility trial in 16 patients with T2D. The primary outcome was difference in mean daily capillary blood glucose during the trial, which decreased from 11.1 (±3.6) to 8.6 (±2.4) mmol L-1 (P < 0.01), meeting the pre-specified endpoint. No episodes of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia with ketosis occurred. These preliminary results warrant further investigation in larger, more diverse clinical studies. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05409391 .

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: A Real-World Experience

BACKGROUND

Glycemic control in the hospital setting is imperative for improving outcomes among patients with diabetes. Bedside point-of-care (POC) glucose monitoring has remained the gold standard for decades, while only providing momentary glimpses into a patient's glycemic control. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in the ambulatory setting. However, a paucity of inpatient experience and data remains a barrier to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and expanded/non-research use in the hospital setting.

METHOD

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA exercised its enforcement discretion to not object to the use of CGM systems for the treatment of patients in hospital settings to support COVID-19 health care-related efforts to reduce viral exposure of health care workers. Following this announcement, Scripps Health, a large not-for-profit health care system in San Diego, California, implemented CGM as the new "standard of care" (CGM as SOC) for glucose monitoring and management in the hospital.

RESULTS

The present report serves to (1) detail the implementation procedures for employing this new SOC; (2) describe the patients receiving CGM as SOC, their glycemic control, and hospital outcomes; and (3) share lessons learned over two years and nearly 900 hospital encounters involving CGM.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we conclude that CGM is feasible in the hospital setting by using a dedicated diabetes care team and the CGM technology with remote monitoring.

Management of older hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes using linagliptin: Lina-Older study

BACKGROUND

Older patients managed with intensive antidiabetic therapy are more likely to be harmed. Our study's primary endpoint was to analyze the safety and efficacy of linagliptin in combination with basal insulin versus basal-bolus insulin in patients with 75 years of age or older hospitalized in medicine and surgery departments in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled non-critically patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes admitted to medicine and non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated hemoglobin <8%, admission blood glucose <240 mg/dL, and without at-home injectable therapies managed with our hospital's antihyperglycemic protocol (basal-bolus or linagliptin-basal regimens) between January 2016 and December 2018. To match each patient who started on the basal-bolus regimen with a patient who started on the linagliptin-basal regimen, a propensity matching analysis was used.

RESULTS

Postmatching, 198 patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in mean daily blood glucose levels after admission (P=0.203); patients with mean blood glucose 100-140mg/dL (P=0.134), 140-180mg/dL (P=0.109), or >200mg/dL (P=0.299); and number and day of treatment failure (P=0.159 and P=0.175, respectively). The total insulin dose and the number of daily injections were significantly lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both, P<0.001). Patients on the basal-bolus insulin regimen had more total hypoglycemic events than patients on the linagliptin-basal insulin regimen (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The linagliptin-basal insulin regimen was an effective alternative with fewer hypoglycemic events and daily insulin injections than intensive basal-bolus insulin in very old patients with type 2 diabetes with mild-to-moderate hyperglycemia treated at home without injectable therapies.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2023)]

This position statement presents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association for diabetes management of adult patients during inpatient stay. It is based on the current evidence with respect to blood glucose targets, insulin therapy and treatment with oral/injectable antidiabetic drugs during inpatient hospitalization. Additionally, special circumstances such as intravenous insulin therapy, concomitant therapy with glucocorticoids and use of diabetes technology during hospitalization are discussed.

Efficacy and Safety of Analog Insulin in Comparison With Human Insulin for Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Stroke: A Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Center Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of analog insulins in comparison with human insulins for hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with acute stroke.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized trial, 102 patients (age 59.4 ± 11.7 years, 54 women) admitted with acute stroke (52 ischemic, 50 hemorrhagic) and hyperglycemia were assigned to analog insulin (n = 52) or human insulin (n = 50) group during February to June 2021. Insulin was initiated and titrated according to the predefined standard protocol. The capillary blood glucose (BG) level was monitored by standardized glucometers. The primary outcomes were mean daily BG and the number of hypoglycemic events.

RESULTS

Between the 2 treatment groups, there was no significant difference in the mean daily BG (P >.05 for all days) or in the frequency of hypoglycemic episodes (P =.727). Four participants experienced severe hypoglycemia; all were receiving human insulin (P =.054). In the analog insulin group, there was a tendency toward lower daily total requirement for insulin (P =.053). The difference in bolus insulin dose was significantly lower in the analog insulin group (P =.029), but the difference in basal insulin dose was similar (P =.167). Between the 2 groups, there were no significant differences in the hospital mortality rate, modified Rankin Scale score on outcome, or length of hospital stay (P =.729,.658, and.918, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients acute stroke and hyperglycemia exhibited similar mean BG but a trend of lower incidence of severe hypoglycemia when treated with analog insulins in comparison with human insulin.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Administration in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

InsulinAPP application protocol for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes on a hospitalist-managed ward: a retrospective study

Introduction

We assessed metrics related to inpatient glycemic control using InsulinAPP, an application available for free in Brazil, on the hospitalist-managed ward of our hospital.

Subjects and methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted from November 2018 to October 2019. InsulinAPP recommends NPH and regular insulins three times a day, in bolus-correction or basal-bolus schemes. Parameters that included BG within range of 70-180 mg/dL, insulin treatment regimen and frequency of hypoglycemia were evaluated.

Results

A total of 147 T2D individuals (23% medicine and 77% surgery) were included (mean age 62.3 ± 12.7 years, HbA1c: 8.3 ± 3.0%). The initial insulin regimen was 50% bolus-correction, 47% basal-bolus and 3% with sliding scale insulin. During hospitalization, 71% patients required a bolus-basal regimen. In the first 10 days of the protocol, 71% BG measurements were between 70-180 mg/dL and 26% patients experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dL, and 5% with BG < 54 mg/dL.

Conclusion

The results of this retrospective study indicate the InsulinAPP application using human insulin formulations was effective and safe for the management of hyperglycemia on a hospitalist-managed ward, with more than 70% BG measurements within the therapeutic range and a low rate of hypoglycemia.

Evidence-based therapeutics for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritically ill patients

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, either with or without diabetes, is a common, serious, and costly healthcare problem. Evidence accumulated over 20 years has associated hyperglycemia with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality, both in surgical and medical patients. Based on this documented link between hyperglycemia and poor outcomes, clinical guidelines from professional organizations recommend the treatment of hospital hyperglycemia with a therapeutic goal of maintaining blood glucose (BG) levels less than 180 mg/dL. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of glycemic management in the inpatient setting. The use of non-insulin antidiabetic drugs in the hospital setting is limited because little data are available regarding their safety and efficacy. However, information about the use of incretin-based therapy in inpatients has increased in the past 15 years. This review aims to summarize the different treatment strategies for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritical patients that are supported by observational studies or clinical trials with insulin and non-insulin drugs. In addition, we propose a protocol to help with the management of this important clinical problem.

A Conversation on an Effective, Straightforward, Quantitative Approach to the Outpatient Use of Insulin

For primary care providers, using insulin can present challenges that can be met by a straightforward approach using the following principles. Depending on when it is injected, each component of the insulin regimen has a maximal effect on a specific period of the 24-hour cycle (e.g., overnight, morning, afternoon, or evening). The glucose pattern in that period determines whether the dose of that component of the insulin regimen requires adjusting. Regarding which insulin types and insulin regimens to use, human insulin (NPH and regular) is as effective as analog insulins, and a two-injection intensified insulin regimen is as effective as a four-injection regimen.

Liraglutide hospital discharge trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of liraglutide versus insulin glargine for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes after hospital discharge

AIM

To compare a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin at hospital discharge in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7%-10% (53-86 mol/mol) were randomized to liraglutide (n = 136) or insulin glargine (n = 137) at hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA1c at 12 and 26 weeks. Secondary endpoints included hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

RESULTS

The between-group difference in HbA1c at 12 weeks and 26 weeks was -0.28% (95% CI -0.64, 0.09), and at 26 weeks it was -0.55%, (95% CI -1.01, -0.09) in favour of liraglutide. Liraglutide treatment resulted in a lower frequency of hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (13% vs 23%; P = 0.04), but there was no difference in the rate of clinically significant hypoglycaemia <3.0 mmol/L. Compared to insulin glargine, liraglutide treatment was associated with greater weight loss at 26 weeks (-4.7 ± 7.7 kg vs -0.6 ± 11.5 kg; P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia was 48% versus 33% (P = 0.05) at 12 weeks and 45% versus 33% (P = 0.14) at 26 weeks in liraglutide versus insulin glargine. The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia and no weight gain was higher with liraglutide at 12 (41% vs 24%, P = 0.005) and 26 weeks (39% vs 22%; P = 0.014). The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with liraglutide than with insulin glargine (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to insulin glargine, treatment with liraglutide at hospital discharge resulted in better glycaemic control and greater weight loss, but increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

DIVE/DPV registries: benefits and risks of analog insulin use in individuals 75 years and older with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to characterize insulin-treated individuals aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin analogs (BIA) or regular insulins (human insulin (HI)/neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)) and to compare the benefits and risks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The analysis was based on data from the DPV (Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation) and DIVE (DIabetes Versorgungs-Evaluation) registries. To balance for confounders, propensity score matching for age, sex, diabetes duration, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as covariates was performed.

RESULTS

Among 167 300 patients aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 80.3 years), 9601 subjects used insulin regimens with basal insulin (HI/NPH or BIA). Of these 8022 propensity score-matched subjects were identified. The mean diabetes duration was ~12 years and half of the patients were male. At the time of switch, patients provided with BIA experienced more dyslipidemia (89.3% vs 85.9%; p=0.002) and took a greater number of medications (4.3 vs 3.7; p<0.001) and depression was more prevalent (8.4% vs 6.5%; p=0.01). Aggregated to the most actual treatment year, BIA was associated with a higher percentage of patients using basal-supported oral therapy (42.6% vs 14.4%) and intensified conventional insulin therapy (44.3% vs 29.4%) and lower total daily insulin doses (0.24 IU/kg/day vs 0.30 IU/kg/day; p<0.001). The study did not reveal significant differences in efficacy (HbA1c 7.4% vs 7.3%; p=0.06), hospitalizations (0.7 vs 0.8 per patient-year (PY); p=0.15), length of stay (16.3 vs 16.1 days per PY; p=0.53), or rates of severe hypoglycemia (4.07 vs 4.40 per 100 PY; p=0.88), hypoglycemia with coma (3.64 vs 3.26 per 100 PY; p=0.88) and diabetic ketoacidosis (0.01 vs 0.03 per 100 PY; p=0.36).

CONCLUSION

BIA were used in more individually and patient-centered therapy regimens compared with HI/NPH in patients with a mean age of 80 years. Both groups were slightly overtreated with mean HbA1c <7.5%. The risk of severe hypoglycemia was low and independent of insulin type. Further analyses of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are needed to provide evidence for best practice approaches in this age group.

Management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia in the hospital

Hyperglycaemia in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital is associated with a substantial increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Professional societies have recommended insulin therapy as the cornerstone of inpatient pharmacological management. Intravenous insulin therapy is the treatment of choice in the critical care setting. In non-intensive care settings, several insulin protocols have been proposed to manage patients with hyperglycaemia; however, meta-analyses comparing different treatment regimens have not clearly endorsed the benefits of any particular strategy. Clinical guidelines recommend stopping oral antidiabetes drugs during hospitalisation; however, in some countries continuation of oral antidiabetes drugs is commonplace in some patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital, and findings from clinical trials have suggested that non-insulin drugs, alone or in combination with basal insulin, can be used to achieve appropriate glycaemic control in selected populations. Advances in diabetes technology are revolutionising day-to-day diabetes care and work is ongoing to implement these technologies (ie, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery) for inpatient care. Additionally, transformations in care have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote inpatient diabetes management-research is needed to assess the effects of such adaptations.

Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Transitions of Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The transition of diabetes care from home to hospital, within the hospital, and upon discharge is fraught with gaps that can adversely affect patient safety and length of stay. We aimed to highlight the variability in care during these transitions and point out areas where research is needed.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed with a combination of search terms that pertained to diabetes, hyperglycemia, hospitalization, locations in the hospital, discharge to home or a nursing facility, and diabetes medications. Studies with at least 50 patients that were written in the English language were included.

RESULTS

With the exception of transitioning from intravenous insulin infusion to subcutaneous insulin and perhaps admission to the regular floors, few studies pointedly focused on transitions of care, leading us to extrapolate recommendations based on data from disparate areas of care in the hospital. There is evidence at every stage of care, starting from the entry into the hospital and ending with discharge home or to a facility, that patients benefit from having protocols in place guiding overall care.

CONCLUSION

Pockets of care exist in hospitals where methods of effective diabetes management have been studied and implemented. However, there is no sustained continuum of care. Protocols and care teams that follow patients from one physical location to the other may result in improved clinical outcomes during and following a hospital stay.

Association Between Achieving Inpatient Glycemic Control and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Retrospective Hospital-Based Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes and hyperglycemia are important risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We hypothesized that achieving glycemic control soon after admission, in both intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings, could affect outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed pooled data from the Glytec national database including 1,544 patients with COVID-19 from 91 hospitals in 12 states. Patients were stratified according to achieved mean glucose category in mg/dL (≤7.77, 7.83-10, 10.1-13.88, and >13.88 mmol/L; ≤140, 141-180, 181-250, and >250 mg/dL) during days 2-3 in non-ICU patients or on day 2 in ICU patients. We conducted a survival analysis to determine the association between glucose category and hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 18.1% (279/1,544) of patients died in the hospital. In non-ICU patients, severe hyperglycemia (blood glucose [BG] >13.88 mmol/L [250 mg/dL]) on days 2-3 was independently associated with high mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 7.17; 95% CI 2.62-19.62) compared with patients with BG <7.77 mmol/L (140 mg/dL). This relationship was not significant for admission glucose (HR 1.465; 95% CI 0.683-3.143). In patients admitted directly to the ICU, severe hyperglycemia on admission was associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR 3.14; 95% CI 1.44-6.88). This relationship was not significant on day 2 (HR 1.40; 95% CI 0.53-3.69). Hypoglycemia (BG <70 mg/dL) was also associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.2; 95% CI 1.35-3.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia were associated with poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Admission glucose was a strong predictor of death among patients directly admitted to the ICU. Severe hyperglycemia after admission was a strong predictor of death among non-ICU patients.

Considerations for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients During Hospitalization: A Narrative Review of What We Need to Know in the Age of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs

With the availability of second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin degludec (100 and 200 units/ml [degludec]) and insulin glargine 300 units/ml (glargine U300), clinicians now have long-acting, efficacious treatment options with stable pharmacokinetic profiles and associated low risks of hypoglycemia that may be desirable for many patients with type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence on glycemic control in hospitalized patients and review the pharmacokinetic properties of degludec and glargine U300 in relation to the challenges these may pose during the hospitalization of patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving outpatient regimens involving these newer insulins. Their increased use in clinical practice requires that hospital healthcare professionals (HCPs) have appropriate protocols to transfer patients from these second-generation insulins to formulary insulin on admission, and ensure the safe discharge of patients and transition back to degludec or glargine U300. However, there is no guidance available on this. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we identify key issues to consider when arranging hospital care of such patients. We also summarize the limited available evidence on the potential utility of these second-generation basal insulin analogs in the non-critical inpatient setting and identify avenues for future research. To address current knowledge gaps, it is important that HCPs are educated about the differences between standard formulary insulins and second-generation insulins, and the importance of clear communication during patient transitions.

Pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes mellitus among hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent comorbidities identified in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This article aims to discuss the pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in patients with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes: results of the phase IV COBALTA trial

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) during hospitalization and therapy intensification at discharge in insufficiently controlled people with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

COBALTA (for its acronym in Spanish, COntrol Basal durante la hospitalizacion y al ALTA) was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV trial including 112 evaluable inpatients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 8%-10%) with basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic drugs. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus-correction insulin regimen with Gla-300 during the hospitalization and with Gla-300 and/or non-insulin antidiabetics for 6 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was the HbA1c change from baseline to month 6 postdischarge.

RESULTS

HbA1c levels decreased from 8.8%±0.6% at baseline to 7.2%±1.1% at month 6 postdischarge (p<0.001, mean change 1.6%±1.1%). All 7-point blood glucose levels decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p≤0.001, mean changes from 25.1±66.6 to 63.0±85.4 mg/dL). Fasting plasma glucose also decreased from baseline to 24 hours predischarge (p<0.001), month 3 (p<0.001) and month 6 (p<0.001) postdischarge (mean changes 51.5±90.9, 68.2±96.0 and 77.6±86.4 mg/dL, respectively). Satisfaction was high and hyperglycemia/hypoglycemia perception was low according to the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire at month 6 postdischarge. The incidence of confirmed (glucose<70 mg/dL)/severe hypoglycemia was 25.0% during hospitalization and 59.1% 6 months after discharge. No safety concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient and intensification therapy at discharge with Gla-300 improved significantly glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with other basal insulin and/or non-insulin antidiabetic medication, with high treatment satisfaction. Gla-300 could therefore be a treatment choice for hospital and postdischarge diabetes management.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Safety And Efficacy Of Dpp-4 Inhibitors For The Management Of Hospitalized General Medicine And Surgery Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have been shown to be effective for the management of inpatient diabetes. We report pooled data from 3 prospective studies using DPP-4i in general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We combined data from 3 randomized studies comparing DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Medicine (n = 266) and surgery (n = 319) patients admitted with a blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated with diet, oral agents, or low-dose insulin therapy were included. Patients received DPP-4i alone (n = 144), DPP-4i plus basal insulin (n = 158) or basal-bolus regimen (n = 283). All groups received correctional doses with rapid-acting insulin for BG >140 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was differences in mean daily BG between groups. Secondary endpoints included differences in hypoglycemia and hospital complications.

RESULTS

There were no differences in mean hospital daily BG among patients treated with DPP-4i alone (170 ± 37 mg/dL), DPP-4i plus basal (172 ± 42 mg/dL), or basalbolus (172 ± 43 mg/dL), P = .94; or in the percentage of BG readings within target of 70 to 180 mg/dL (63 ± 32%, 60 ± 31%, and 64 ± 28%, respectively; P = .42). There were no differences in length of stay or complications, but hypoglycemia was less common with DPP-4i alone (2%) compared to DPP-4i plus basal (9%) and basal-bolus (10%); P = .004.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin is effective and results in a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.

ABBREVIATIONS

BG = blood glucose; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DPP-4i = dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; OR = odds ratio; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Insulin Therapy in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is prevalent and is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Insulin therapy is the most appropriate method for controlling glycemia in hospital, but is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia, which is a barrier to achieving glycemic goals.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Optimal glycemic targets have not been established in the critical and noncritical hospitalized patients, and there are different modalities of insulin therapy. The primary purpose of this review is to discuss controversy regarding appropriate glycemic targets and summarize the evidence about the safety and efficacy of insulin therapy in critical and noncritical care settings.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed with the following key words (inpatient hyperglycemia, inpatient diabetes, glycemic control AND critically or non-critically ill patient, Insulin therapy in hospital).

RESULTS

In critically ill patient, blood glucose levels >180 mg/dL may increase the risk of hospital complications, and blood glucose levels <110 mg/dL have been associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Continuous intravenous insulin infusion is the best method for achieving glycemic targets in the critically ill patient. The ideal glucose goals for noncritically ill patients remain undefined and must be individualized according to the characteristics of the patients. A basal-bolus insulin strategy resulted in better glycemic control than sliding scale insulin and lower risk of hypoglycemia than premixed insulin regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Extremes of blood glucose lead to poor outcomes, and target glucose range of 110-180 mg/dL may be appropriate for most critically ill patients and noncritically ill patients. Insulin is the most appropriate pharmacologic agent for effectively controlling glycemia in hospital. A continuous intravenous insulin infusion and scheduled basal-bolus-correction insulin are the preferred modalities for glycemic control in critically and noncritically ill hospitalized patients, respectively.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glargine U300 and Glargine U100 for the Inpatient Management of Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Glargine U300 Hospital Trial

OBJECTIVE

The role of U300 glargine insulin for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has not been determined. We compared the safety and efficacy of glargine U300 versus glargine U100 in noncritically ill patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial included 176 patients with poorly controlled T2D (admission blood glucose [BG] 228 ± 82 mg/dL and HbA1c 9.5 ± 2.2%), treated with oral agents or insulin before admission. Patients were treated with a basal-bolus regimen with glargine U300 (n = 92) or glargine U100 (n = 84) and glulisine before meals. We adjusted insulin daily to a target BG of 70-180 mg/dL. The primary end point was noninferiority in the mean difference in daily BG between groups. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between glargine U300 and U100 in mean daily BG (186 ± 40 vs. 184 ± 46 mg/dL, P = 0.62), percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dL (50 ± 27% vs. 55 ± 29%, P = 0.3), length of stay (median [IQR] 6.0 [4.0, 8.0] vs. 4.0 [3.0, 7.0] days, P = 0.06), hospital complications (6.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.42), or insulin total daily dose (0.43 ± 0.21 vs. 0.42 ± 0.20 units/kg/day, P = 0.74). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dL (8.7% vs. 9.5%, P > 0.99), but glargine U300 resulted in significantly lower rates of clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) compared with glargine U100 (0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital treatment with glargine U300 resulted in similar glycemic control compared with glargine U100 and may be associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemia.

Intralipid Increases Nitric Oxide Release from Human Endothelial Cells During Oxidative Stress

BACKGROUND

Intralipid (ILP), a lipid emulsion, protects organs against ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury. We hypothesized that ILP activates endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and increases NO release from endothelial cells (ECs) through a fatty-acid translocase cluster of differentiation (CD36) mediated endocytotic mechanism, acting as a potentially protective paracrine signal during oxidative stress.

METHODS

Human umbilical-vein ECs were exposed to 1% ILP for 2 hours followed by oxidative stress with 0.2-mM hydrogen peroxide for 2 hours. Western blots were conducted with anti-CD36, dynamin-2, src-kinase-1, eNOS, and phospho-eNOS; equal protein loading was confirmed with β-actin. CD36 immunoprecipitation was probed for caveolin-1 to determine if CD36 and caveolin-1 were complexed on the cell membrane. NO was measured by fluorescence of ECs.

RESULTS

ILP caused a 227% increase in CD36 expression vs controls. Immunoprecipitation indicated a CD36/caveolin-1 complex on ECs' membrane with exposure to ILP. Dynamin-2 increased 52% and src-kinase-1 340% after ILP treatment vs control cells. eNOS phosphorylation was confirmed by a 63% increase in the phospho-eNOS/eNOS ratio in ILP-treated cells, and NO fluorescence increased 102%.

CONCLUSION

ILP enters ECs via endocytosis by a CD36/caveolin-1 cell membrane receptor complex, which in turn is pulled into the cell by dynamin-2 activity. Upregulation of src-kinase-1 and eNOS phosphorylation suggest downstream mediators. Subsequent NO release from ECs serve as a paracrine signal to neighboring cells for protection against IR injury. Student t-test was utilized for single comparisons and analysis of variance with Bonferroni-Dunn post hoc modification for multiple comparisons; P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Debate on Insulin vs Non-insulin Use in the Hospital Setting-Is It Time to Revise the Guidelines for the Management of Inpatient Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperglycemia contributes to a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in the hospital. Professional associations recommend insulin as the mainstay of diabetes therapy in the inpatient setting. The standard of care basal-bolus insulin regimen is a labor-intensive approach associated with a significant risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. This review summarizes recent evidence from observational studies and clinical trials suggesting that not all patients require treatment with complex insulin regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence from clinical trials shows that incretin-based agents are effective in appropriately selected hospitalized patients and may be a safe alternative to complicated insulin regimens. Observational studies also show that older agents (i.e., metformin and sulfonylureas) are commonly used in the hospital, but there are few carefully designed studies addressing their efficacy. Therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, alone or in combination with basal insulin, may effectively control glucose levels in patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. Further studies with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogs and older oral agents are needed to confirm their safety in the hospital.

[Hospital diabetes management (Update 2019)]

This position statement presents the recommendations of the Austrian Diabetes Association for diabetes management of adult patients during inpatient stay. It is based on the current evidence with respect to blood glucose targets, insulin therapy and treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs during inpatient hospitalization. Additionally, special circumstances such as intravenous insulin therapy, concomitant therapy with glucocorticoids and use of diabetes technology during hospitalization are discussed.

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of linagliptin for the management of non-cardiac surgery patients with type 2 diabetes in a real-world setting: Lina-Surg study

Introduction: The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients is an area of active research. We aimed to compare the efficacy and the safety of the basal-bolus insulin regimen versus linagliptin-basal insulin in non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients in a real-world setting. Methods: We enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated haemoglobin level < 8%, admission blood glucose concentration < 240 mg/dL, and no at-home injectable treatments who were treated with basal-bolus (n = 347) or linagliptin-basal (n = 190) regimens between January 2016 and December 2017. To match patients on the two regimens, a propensity matching analysis was performed. Results: After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. No differences were noted in mean blood glucose concentration after admission (p = .162), number of patients with a mean blood glucose 100-140 mg/dL (p = .163) and > 200 mg/dL (p = .199), and treatment failures (p = .395). Total daily insulin and number of daily insulin injections were lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both p < .001). Patients on linagliptin-basal insulin had fewer hypoglycaemic events (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) (p < .001). Conclusion: For type 2 diabetes surgery patients with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia without pre-hospitalization injectable therapies, linagliptin-basal insulin was an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events in real-world practice. Key messages Treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimens is the standard of care for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. A differentiated treatment protocol that takes into account glycaemic control and clinical factors should be implemented in the hospital setting. Linagliptin-basal insulin is an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events during the hospitalization of non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients with T2D in real-world practice.

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A multicentre randomized clinical trial

AIMS

The use of incretin-based therapy, rather than or complementary to, insulin therapy is an active area of research in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We determined the glycaemic efficacy and safety of linagliptin compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized surgical patients with T2D.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective open-label multicentre study randomized T2D patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery with admission blood glucose (BG) of 7.8 to 22.2 mmol/L who were under treatment with diet, oral agents or total insulin dose (TDD) ≤ 0.5 units/kg/day to either linagliptin (n = 128) daily or basal-bolus (n = 122) with glargine once daily and rapid-acting insulin before meals. Both groups received supplemental insulin for BG > 7.8 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was difference in mean daily BG between groups.

RESULTS

Mean daily BG was higher in the linagliptin group compared to the basal-bolus group (9.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.8 ± 2.3 mmol/L/dL, P = 0.03) with a mean daily BG difference of 0.6 mmol/L (95% confidence interval 0.04, 1.2). In patients with randomization BG < 11.1 mmol/L (63% of cohort), mean daily BG was similar in the linagliptin and basal-bolus groups (8.9 ± 2.3 vs 8.7 ± 2.3 mmol/L, P = 0.43); however, patients with BG ≥ 11.1 mmol/L who were treated with linagliptin had higher BG compared to the basal-bolus group (10.9 ± 2.6 vs 9.2 ± 2.2 mmol/L, P < 0.001). Linagliptin resulted in fewer hypoglycaemic events (1.6% vs 11%, P = 0.001; 86% relative risk reduction), with similar supplemental insulin and fewer daily insulin injections (2.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.001) compared to the basal-bolus group.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with T2D undergoing non-cardiac surgery who presented with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia (BG < 11.1 mmol/L), daily linagliptin is a safe and effective alternative to multi-dose insulin therapy, resulting in similar glucose control with lower hypoglycaemia.

GlucoTab-guided insulin therapy using insulin glargine U300 enables glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open, non-controlled single-arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal-bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m² ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab-suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

Sitagliptin for prevention of stress hyperglycemia in patients without diabetes undergoing general surgery: A pilot randomized study

AIM

We investigated if a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, can prevent perioperative stress hyperglycemia in patients without prior history of diabetes mellitus undergoing general surgery.

METHODS

This double-blind pilot trial randomized general surgery patients to receive sitagliptin (n = 44) or placebo (n = 36) once daily, starting one day prior to surgery and continued during the hospital stay. The primary outcome was occurrence of stress hyperglycemia, defined by blood glucose (BG) >140 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL after surgery. Secondary outcomes included: length-of-stay, ICU transfers, hypoglycemia, and hospital complications.

RESULTS

BG >140 mg/dL was present in 44 (55%) of subjects following surgery. There were no differences in hyperglycemia between placebo and sitagliptin (56% vs. 55%, p = 0.93). BG >180 mg/dL was observed in 19% and 11% of patients treated with placebo and sitagliptin, respectively, p = 0.36. Both treatment groups had resulted in similar postoperative BG (148.9 ± 29.4 mg/dL vs. 146.9 ± 35.2 mg/dL, p = 0.73). There were no differences in length-of-stay (4 vs. 3 days, p = 0.84), ICU transfer (3% vs. 5%, p = 1.00), hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (6% vs. 11%, p = 0.45), and complications (14% vs. 18%, p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative treatment with sitagliptin did not prevent stress hyperglycemia or complications in individuals without diabetes undergoing surgery.

Use of Linagliptin for the Management of Medicine Department Inpatients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Clinical Practice (Lina-Real-World Study)

The use of noninsulin antihyperglycaemic drugs in the hospital setting has not yet been fully described. This observational study compared the efficacy and safety of the standard basal-bolus insulin regimen versus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (linagliptin) plus basal insulin in medicine department inpatients in real-world clinical practice. We retrospectively enrolled non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia and no injectable treatments at home who were treated with a hospital antihyperglycaemic regimen (basal-bolus insulin, or linagliptin-basal insulin) between January 2016 and December 2017. Propensity score was used to match patients in both treatment groups and a comparative analysis was conducted to test the significance of differences between groups. After matched-pair analysis, 227 patients were included per group. No differences were shown between basal-bolus versus linagliptin-basal regimens for the mean daily blood glucose concentration after admission (standardized difference = 0.011), number of blood glucose readings between 100⁻140 mg/dL (standardized difference = 0.017) and >200 mg/dL (standardized difference = 0.021), or treatment failures (standardized difference = 0.011). Patients on basal-bolus insulin received higher total insulin doses and a higher daily number of injections (standardized differences = 0.298 and 0.301, respectively). Basal and supplemental rapid-acting insulin doses were similar (standardized differences = 0.003 and 0.012, respectively). There were no differences in hospital stay length (standardized difference = 0.003), hypoglycaemic events (standardized difference = 0.018), or hospital complications (standardized difference = 0.010) between groups. This study shows that in real-world clinical practice, the linagliptin-basal insulin regimen was as effective and safe as the standard basal-bolus regimen in non-critical patients with type 2 diabetes with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia treated at home without injectable therapies.

Diabetes management before, during, and after bariatric and metabolic surgery

Metabolic surgery is unrivaled by other therapeutic modalities due to its ability to foster diabetes remission. Metabolic surgery is an integral therapeutic modality in obese and morbidly obese populations because pharmacological and behavioral therapy often fail to effectively manage type II diabetes. However, given the invasiveness of the metabolic surgery relative to behavioral therapy and the need to conform to preparatory and discharge guidelines, patients must adhere to strict nutritional and diabetes management protocols. Also, the pharmacological regimen that is instituted upon discharge is distinct from the preoperative regimen. Oftentimes, the dose for insulin and oral medications are significantly decreased or withdrawn. As time elapses and depending on several factors (e.g., exercise adherence), diabetes control becomes tenuous in a small portion of the patients because there is weight regain and on-going beta cell failure. At this time interval, intensification of diabetes therapy becomes prudent. Indeed, pharmacotherapy from the preoperative to the postoperative phase is labile and may be complex. Therefore, by discussing pharmacology options during the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative period, the goal is to guide clinician-driven care.

Manejo de pacientes diabéticos hospitalizados

La diabetes es una enfermedad con importante prevalencia en todo el mundo. Se calcula que cerca de 415 millones de personas la padecen en la actualidad y que para el año 2040 esta cifra aumentará poco más del 50%. Debido a esto, se estima que gran parte de los ingresos por urgencias serán de pacientes diabéticos o sujetos a los cuales esta patología se les diagnosticará en dicha hospitalización; esta situación hace necesario conocer los lineamientos y las recomendaciones de las guías para el manejo intrahospitalario de los pacientes con hiperglucemia.El pilar fundamental del manejo hospitalario de diabetes es la monitorización intensiva, junto con la educación al paciente y la administración de insulina. El control glicémico es clave debido a que disminuye complicaciones intrahospitalarias. Cabe resaltar que el control estricto puede llevar a hipoglucemias, por lo que los episodios deben ser debidamente documentados y su causa corregida de inmediato.

Perioperative Management of Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Cardiac Surgery Patients

Perioperative hyperglycemia is common after cardiac surgery, reported in 60% to 90% of patients with diabetes and in approximately 60% of patients without history of diabetes. Many observational and prospective randomized trials in critically-ill cardiac surgery patients support a strong association between hyperglycemia and poor clinical outcome. Despite ongoing debate about the optimal glucose target, there is strong agreement that improved glycemic control reduces perioperative complications.

The impact of glycaemic variability on the surgical patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes is the most prevalent long-term metabolic condition and its incidence continues to increase unabated. Patients with diabetes are overrepresented in the surgical population. It has been well recognized that poor perioperative diabetes control is associated with poor surgical outcomes. The outcomes are worst for those people who were not recognized as having hyperglycaemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent work has shown that preoperative recognition of diabetes and good communication between the clinical teams at all stages of the patient pathway help to minimize the potential for errors, and improve glycaemic control. The stages of the patient journey start in primary care and end when the patient goes home. The early involvement of the diabetes specialist team is important if the glycated haemoglobin is more than 8.5%, and advice sought if the preoperative assessment team is not familiar with the drug regimens. To date the glycaemic targets for the perioperative period have remained uncertain, but recently a consensus is being reached to ensure glucose levels remain between 108 and180 mg/dl (6.0 and 10.0 mmol/l). There have been a number of ways to achieve these - primarily by manipulating the patients' usual diabetes medications, to also allow day of surgery admission.

SUMMARY

glycaemic control remains an important consideration in the surgical patient.

The Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Preventing Inpatient Hypoglycemia in General Wards: The Glucose Telemetry System

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in the general wards. The aim of this pilot study was to examine whether CGM readings can be successfully transmitted from the bedside to a central monitoring device in the nursing station, and whether a glucose telemetry system can prevent hypoglycemic events.

METHODS

We present pilot data on 5 consecutive insulin treated general medicine patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) whose glucose values were observed with CGM (DEXCOM) and the results were transmitted to a central nursing station monitoring system using DEXCOM Follow and Share 2 software. CGM alarms were set-up at glucose <85 mg/dl.

RESULTS

Duration of CGM observation was 4.0 ± 1.6 days (mean ± SD). During CGM, the overall time spent within blood glucose (BG) target of 70-179 mg/dl was 64.68 ± 15% (mean ± SD), on hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) was 0.30% ± 0.39, and time spent on hyperglycemia (≥180 mg/dl) was 35.02% ± 15.5. Two patients had 3 actions of prevention of potential hypoglycemia (CGM BG <70 mg/dl for >20 minutes) captured by alarm. No patients had CGM glucose value <54 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study indicates that the use of CGM values in hospitalized patients can be successfully transmitted to a monitoring device in the nursing station, improving patient surveillance in insulin treated patients with diabetes.

Derivation and validation model for hospital hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND

An objective and simple prognostic model for hospitalized patients with hypoglycemia could be helpful in guiding initial intensity of treatment.

METHODS

We carried out a derivation rule for hypoglycemia using data from a nationwide retrospective cohort study of patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia carried out in 2014 (n=839 patients). The rule for hypoglycemia was validated using a second data set from a nationwide retrospective cohort study carried out in 2016 (n=561 patients). We derived our prediction rule using logistic regression with hypoglycemia (glucose less than 70mg/dL) as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoglycemia in the derivation cohort was 10.3%. Patient's characteristics independently associated with hypoglycemia included episodes of hypoglycemia during the previous three months (odds ratio [OR]: 6.29, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 3.37-11.79, p<0.001) estimated glomerular filtration rate lower than 30mL/min/1.73m² (OR: 2.32, 95%CI: 1.23-4.35, p=0.009), daily insulin dose greater than 0.3units per Kg (OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.06-2.85, p=0.028), and days of hospitalization (OR: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01-1.04, p=0.001). The model showed an area under the curve (AUC): 0.72 (95%CI: 0.66-0.78, p<0.001). The AUC in the validation cohort was: 0.71 (95%CI: 0.63-0.79, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rule showed fair accuracy to predict hypoglycemia. Implementation of the rule into computer systems could be used in guiding initial insulin therapy.

Neutral protamine hagedorn/regular insulin in the treatment of inpatient hyperglycemia: Comparison of 3 basal-bolus regimens

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy or 3 basal-bolus regimens of neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH)/regular insulin in the management of inpatient hyperglycemia.

METHODS

We randomized 105 patients with blood glucose levels between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen of NPH insulin given once (n = 30), twice (n = 40) or three times (n = 35) daily, in addition to pre-meal regular insulin. Major outcomes included were differences in glycemic control, frequency of hypoglycemia and total insulin dose.

RESULTS

NPH insulin given in a once-daily regimen was associated with better glycemic control (58.3%) compared to twice daily (42.4%) and three times daily (48.9) regimens (P = 0.031). The frequency of hypoglycemia was similar between the three groups (2.0%, 0.7% and 1.2%, P = 0.21). The mean insulin dose at discharge was 0.48 ± 0.14 U/kg in the once-daily group compared to 0.69 ± 0.28 in the twice-daily, and 0.65 ± 0.20 in the three times daily regimens (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

NPH insulin administered in a once-daily regimen resulted in improvement in glycemic control with similar rates of hypoglycemia compared to a twice-daily and a three times-daily regimen. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this regimen could be implemented in all hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia.

Management of Type 1 Diabetes in the Hospital Setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article was to review recent guideline recommendations on glycemic target, glucose monitoring, and therapeutic strategies, while providing practical recommendations for the management of medical and surgical patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) admitted to critical and non-critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies evaluating safety and efficacy of insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, electronic glucose management systems, and closed loop systems for the inpatient management of hyperglycemia are described. Due to the increased prevalence and life expectancy of patients with type 1 diabetes, a growing number of these patients require hospitalization every year. Inpatient diabetes management is complex and is best provided by a multidisciplinary diabetes team. In the absence of such resource, providers and health care staff must become familiar with the features of this condition to avoid complications such as severe hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, or glycemic variability. We reviewed most recent guidelines and relevant literature in the topic to provide practical recommendations for the inpatient management of patients with T1D.

COMPARISON OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF GLARGINE AND DETEMIR INSULIN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INPATIENT HYPERGLYCEMIA AND DIABETES

OBJECTIVE

Glargine and detemir insulin are the two most commonly prescribed basal insulin analogues for the ambulatory and inpatient management of diabetes. The efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues in the hospital setting has not been established.

METHODS

This observational study compared differences in glycemic control and outcomes in non-intensive care unit patients with blood glucose (BG) >140 mg/dL who were treated with glargine or detemir, between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015, in two academic centers.

RESULTS

Among 6,245 medical and surgical patients with hyperglycemia, 5,749 received one or more doses of glargine, and 496 patients received detemir during the hospital stay. There were no differences in the mean daily BG (glargine, 182 ± 46 mg/dL vs. detemir, 180 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .70). There were no differences in mortality, hospital complications, or re-admissions between groups (all, P>.05). After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no statistically significant difference in hypoglycemia rates between treatment groups. Patients treated with detemir required higher total daily basal insulin doses (0.27 ± 0.16 units/kg/day vs. 0.22 ± 0.15 units/kg/day; P<.001). Glargine-treated patients had statistically longer length of stay; however, this difference may not be clinically relevant (6.8 ± 7.4 days vs. 6.0 ± 6.3 days; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that treatment with glargine and detemir results in similar inpatient glycemic control in general medicine and surgery patients. Detemir treatment was associated with higher daily basal insulin dose and number of injections. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm these findings.

ABBREVIATIONS

BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index CI = confidence interval eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision ICU = intensive care unit IQR = interquartile range LOS = length-of-stay OR = odd ratio.

Brazilian guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: a position statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD), the Brazilian Cardiology Society (SBC) and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society (SBEM)

BACKGROUND

Since the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical risk-based approach on treatment for patients with diabetes.

MAIN BODY

The Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Adults aged 65 years and older are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population, and their number is expected to double to 89 million between 2010 and 2050. The prevalence of diabetes in hospitalized adults aged 65-75 years and over 80 years of age has been estimated to be 20% and 40%, respectively. Similar to general populations, the presence of hyperglycemia and diabetes in elderly patients is associated with increased risk of hospital complications, longer length of stay, and increased mortality compared with subjects with normoglycemia. Clinical guidelines recommend target blood glucose between 140 and 180 mg/dL (7.8 and 10 mmol/L) for most patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). A similar blood glucose target is recommended for patients in non-ICU settings; however, glycemic targets should be individualized in older adults on the basis of a patient's clinical status, risk of hypoglycemia, and presence of diabetes complications. Insulin is the preferred agent to manage hyperglycemia and diabetes in the hospital. Continuous insulin infusion in the ICU and rational use of basal-bolus or basal plus supplement regimens in non-ICU settings are effective in achieving glycemic goals. Noninsulin regimens with the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors alone or in combination with basal insulin have been shown to be safe and effective and may represent an alternative to basal-bolus regimens in elderly patients. Smooth transition of care to the outpatient setting is facilitated by providing oral and written instructions regarding timing and dosing of insulin as well as education in basic skills for home management.

Perioperative Hyperglycemia Management: An Update

An association between perioperative hyperglycemia and adverse outcomes has been established in surgical patients, 1 -3 with morbidity being reduced in those treated with insulin.5 -6 A practical treatment algorithm and literature summary is provided for surgical patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia.