Prandial insulin dosing using the carbohydrate counting technique in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients

People with diabetes account for 25% of hospitalizations, or 8 million admissions annually. Poor glycemic control in the hospital is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and readmissions. Key considerations of inpatient diabetes management include initiation of appropriate insulin or medication regimens and frequent dose adjustments based on patient-specific factors. Inpatient diabetes management teams and new technologies are increasingly prevalent and can assist in achieving glycemic targets in the hospital. At discharge, standardized checklists should be used to ensure successful transitions of care.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Adult Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

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

CONTEXT

Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.

Prediction of Glucose Concentration in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using Neural Networks: An Edge Computing Application

Background: Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1D) is an autoimmune disease that can cause serious complications that can be avoided by preventing the glycemic levels from exceeding the physiological range. Straightforwardly, many data-driven models were developed to forecast future glycemic levels and to allow patients to avoid adverse events. Most models are tuned on data of adult patients, whereas the prediction of glycemic levels of pediatric patients has been rarely investigated, as they represent the most challenging T1D population. Methods: A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Recurrent Neural Network were optimized on glucose, insulin, and meal data of 10 virtual pediatric patients. The trained models were then implemented on two edge-computing boards to evaluate the feasibility of an edge system for glucose forecasting in terms of prediction accuracy and inference time. Results: The LSTM model achieved the best numeric and clinical accuracy when tested in the .tflite format, whereas the CNN achieved the best clinical accuracy in uint8. The inference time for each prediction was far under the limit represented by the sampling period. Conclusion: Both models effectively predict glucose in pediatric patients in terms of numerical and clinical accuracy. The edge implementation did not show a significant performance decrease, and the inference time was largely adequate for a real-time application.

Efficient and safe glycaemic control with basal-bolus insulin therapy during fasting periods in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes using decision support technology: A post hoc analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin therapy in managing glycaemia during fasting periods in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of two prospective, uncontrolled interventional trials that applied electronic decision support system-guided basal-bolus (meal-related and correction) insulin therapy. We searched for fasting periods (invasive or diagnostic procedures, medical condition) during inpatient stays. In a mixed model analysis, patients' glucose levels and insulin doses on days with regular food intake were compared with days with fasting periods.

RESULTS

Out of 249 patients, 115 patients (33.9% female, age 68.3 ± 10.3 years, diabetes duration 15.1 ± 10.9 years, body mass index 30.1 ± 5.4 kg/m² , HbA1c 69 ± 20 mmol/mol) had 194 days with fasting periods. Mean daily blood glucose (BG) was lower (modelled difference [ModDiff]: -0.5 ± 0.2 mmol/L, P = .006), and the proportion of glucose values within the target range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased on days with fasting periods compared with days with regular food intake (ModDiff: +0.06 ± 0.02, P = .005). Glycaemic control on fasting days was driven by a reduction in daily bolus insulin doses (ModDiff: -11.0 ± 0.9 IU, P < .001), while basal insulin was similar (ModDiff: -1.1 ± 0.6 IU, P = .082) compared with non-fasting days. Regarding hypoglycaemic events (BG < 3.9 mmol/L), there was no difference between fasting and non-fasting days (χ² 0.9% vs. 1.7%, P = .174).

CONCLUSIONS

When using well-titrated basal-bolus insulin therapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the basal insulin dose does not require adjustment during fasting periods to achieve safe glycaemic control, provided meal-related bolus insulin is omitted and correction bolus insulin is tailored to glucose levels.

Efficacy of Bolus Calculation and Advanced Carbohydrate Counting in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Carbohydrate counting and use of automated bolus calculators (ABCs) can help reduce HbA_1c in type 1 diabetes but only limited evidence exists in type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the efficacy of advanced carbohydrate counting (ACC) and use of an ABC compared with manual insulin bolus calculation (MC) in persons with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: A 24-week open-label, randomized clinical study was conducted in 79 persons with type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (mean age 62.5 ± 9.6 years, HbA_1c 8.7% ± 1.0% [72 ± 11 mmol/mol], diabetes duration 18.7 ± 7.6 years). Participants were randomized 1:1 into two groups: ABC group received training in ACC and use of an ABC; MC group received training in ACC and manual calculation of insulin bolus. Participants wore blinded continuous glucose monitors for 6 days at baseline and at study end. Primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c. Results: After 24 weeks, HbA_1c decreased 0.8% (8.8 mmol/mol) in ABC group and 0.8% (9.0 mmol/mol) in MC group with no between-group difference (P = 0.96) and without increase in time in hypoglycemic range (sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L). Glycemic variability decreased significantly in both groups, whereas the total insulin dose and body mass index (BMI) remained unchanged during the study. Treatment satisfaction increased significantly in both groups after 24 weeks. Conclusion: ACC is an effective, low-cost tool to reduce HbA_1c and glycemic variability in persons with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes without increase in hypoglycemia or BMI. Similar effects were seen with use of an ABC and with use of manual bolus calculation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02887898.

Evaluating the Impact of Inadequate Meal Consumption on Insulin-Related Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVE

Meal intake is sometimes reduced in hospitalized patients. Meal-time insulin administration can cause hypoglycemia when a meal is not consumed. Inpatient providers may avoid ordering meal-time insulin due to hypoglycemia concerns, which can result in hyperglycemia. The frequency of reduced meal intake in hospitalized patients remains inadequately determined. This quality improvement project evaluates the percentage of meals consumed by hospitalized patients with insulin orders and the resulting risk of postmeal hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] <70 mg/dL, <3.9 mmol/L).

METHODS

This was a retrospective quality improvement project evaluating patients with any subcutaneous insulin orders hospitalized at a regional academic medical center between 2015 and 2017. BG, laboratory values, point of care, insulin administration, diet orders, and percentage of meal consumed documented by registered nurses were abstracted from electronic health records.

RESULTS

Meal consumption ≥50% was observed for 85% of meals with insulin orders, and bedside registered nurses were accurate at estimating this percentage. Age ≥65 years was a risk factor for reduced meal consumption (21% of meals 0%-49% consumed, P < .05 vs age < 65 years [12%]). Receiving meal-time insulin and then consuming only 0% to 49% of a meal (defined here as a mismatch) was not rare (6% of meals) and increased postmeal hypoglycemia risk. However, the attributable risk of postmeal hypoglycemia due to this mismatch was low (4 events per 1000) in patients with premeal BG between 70 and 180 mg/dL.

CONCLUSION

This project demonstrates that hospitalized patients treated with subcutaneous insulin have a low attributable risk of postmeal hypoglycemia related to inadequate meal intake.

A Pragmatic Approach to Inpatient Diabetes Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic of COVID-19 has presented new challenges to hospital personnel providing care for infected patients with diabetes who represent more than 20% of critically ill patients in intensive care units. Appropriate glycemic management contributes to a reduction in adverse clinical outcomes in acute illness but also requires intensive patient interactions for bedside glucose monitoring, intravenous and subcutaneous insulin administration, as well as rapid intervention for hypoglycemia events. These tasks are required at a time when minimizing patient interactions is recommended as a way of avoiding prolonged exposure to COVID-19 by health care personnel who often practice in settings with limited supplies of personal protective equipment. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide guidance for clinicians for reconciling recommended standards of care for infected hospitalized patients with diabetes while also addressing the daily realities of an overwhelmed health care system in many areas of the country. The use of modified protocols for insulin administration, bedside glucose monitoring, and medications such as glucocorticoids and hydroxychloroquine that may affect glycemic control are discussed. Continuous glucose monitoring systems have been proposed as an option for reducing time spent with patients, but there are important issues that need to be addressed if these are used in hospitalized patients. On-site and remote glucose management teams have potential to provide guidance in areas where there are shortages of personnel who have expertise in inpatient glycemic management.

The 'brick diet' and postprandial insulin: a practical method to balance carbohydrates ingested and prandial insulin to prevent hypoglycaemia in hospitalized persons with diabetes

AIM

Insulin is the preferred treatment for the control of diabetes in hospital, but it raises the risk of hypoglycaemia, often because oral intake of carbohydrates in hospitalized persons is lower than planned. Our aim was to assess the effect on the incidence of hypoglycaemia of giving prandial insulin immediately after a meal depending on the amount of carbohydrate ingested.

METHODS

A prospective pre-post intervention study in hospitalized persons with diabetes eating meals with stable doses of carbohydrates present in a few fixed foods. Foods were easily identifiable on the tray and contained fixed doses of carbohydrates that were easily quantifiable by nurses as multiples of 10 g (a 'brick'). Prandial insulin was given immediately after meals in proportion to the amount of carbohydrates eaten.

RESULTS

In 83 of the first 100 people treated with the 'brick diet', the oral carbohydrate intake was lower than planned on at least one occasion (median: 3 times; Q1-Q3: 2-6 times) over a median of 5 days. Compared with the last 100 people treated with standard procedures, postprandial insulin given on the basis of ingested carbohydrate significantly reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemic events per day, from 0.11 ± 0.03 to 0.04 ± 0.02 (P < 0.001) with an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.92; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized persons with diabetes treated with subcutaneous insulin, the 'brick diet' offers a practical method to count the amount of carbohydrates ingested, which is often less than planned. Prandial insulin given immediately after a meal, in doses balanced with actual carbohydrate intake reduces the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Insulin in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes-Should the Dose of Insulin Before a Meal be Based on Glycemia or Meal Content?

The aim of this review was to investigate existing guidelines and scientific evidence on determining insulin dosage in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in particular to check whether the prandial insulin dose should be calculated based on glycemia or the meal composition, including the carbohydrates, protein and fat content in a meal. By exploring the effect of the meal composition on postprandial glycemia we demonstrated that several factors may influence the increase in glycemia after the meal, which creates significant practical difficulties in determining the appropriate prandial insulin dose. Then we reviewed effects of the existing insulin therapy regimens on glycemic control. We demonstrated that in most existing algorithms aimed at calculating prandial insulin doses in type 1 diabetes only carbohydrates are counted, whereas in type 2 diabetes the meal content is often not taken into consideration. We conclude that prandial insulin doses in treatment of people with diabetes should take into account the pre-meal glycemia as well as the size and composition of meals. However, there are still open questions regarding the optimal way to adjust a prandial insulin dose to a meal and the possible benefits for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes if particular parameters of the meal are taken into account while calculating the prandial insulin dose. The answers to these questions may vary depending on the type of diabetes.

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.

Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups.

RESULTS

Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.

Evaluation of the timing and coordination of prandial insulin administration in the hospital

AIMS

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between measures of coordinated insulin delivery and capillary blood glucose (CBG) levels among hospitalized patients and to assess nurse perceptions of insulin administration.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients (n=451) receiving rapid acting insulin analog (RAIA) using carbohydrate counting were retrospectively analyzed. Nurses (n=35) were asked to complete an 18-item anonymous survey assessing perception of RAIA dosing.

RESULTS

The median time from breakfast CBG to RAIA dose was 93 (IQR 57-138) min. There was no association between timeliness measures and mean CBG at lunch or dinner. Hypoglycemia was rare (N=2). More than half (54%) of nurses were confident all of the time in determining the correct dose of RAIA, though none were confident in administering it on time. The majority of nurses perceived an electronic dosing calculator and a patient reminder to notify the nurse at the end of the meal favorably.

CONCLUSIONS

The data demonstrate suboptimal coordination of CBG monitoring and insulin doses using a flexible meal insulin dosing strategy, though there was minimal impact on glycemic control. Nurses reported high confidence in the ability to calculate the correct insulin dose but not in the ability to administer it on time.

Nutrition and Hyperglycemia Management in the Inpatient Setting (Meals on Demand, Parenteral, or Enteral Nutrition)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to provide the latest evidence and expert recommendations for management of hospitalized patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia receiving enteral (EN), parenteral (PN) nutrition support or, those with unrestricted oral diet, consuming meals on demand.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with and without diabetes mellitus commonly develop hyperglycemia while receiving EN or PN support, placing them at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality. Very little new evidence is available in the form of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to guide the glycemic management of these patients. Reduction in the dextrose concentration within parenteral nutrition as well as selection of an enteral formula that diminishes the carbohydrate exposure to a patient receiving enteral nutrition are common strategies utilized in practice. No specific insulin regimen has been shown to be superior in the management of patients receiving EN or PN nutrition support. For those receiving oral nutrition, new challenges have been introduced with the most recent practice allowing patients to eat meals on demand, leading to extreme variability in carbohydrate exposure and risk of hypo and hyperglycemia. Synchronization of nutrition delivery with the astute use of intravenous or subcutaneous insulin therapy to match the physiologic action of insulin in patients receiving nutritional support should be implemented to improve glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate glycemic and other clinical outcomes of patients receiving nutritional support. For patients eating meals on demand, development of hospital guidelines and policies are needed, ensuring optimization and coordination of meal insulin delivery in order to facilitate patient safety.

Insulin Aspart in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus: 15 Years of Clinical Experience

Limiting excessive postprandial glucose excursions is an important component of good overall glycemic control in diabetes mellitus. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that insulin aspart, which is structurally identical to regular human insulin except for the replacement of a single proline amino acid with an aspartic acid residue, has a more physiologic time-action profile (i.e., reaches a higher peak and reaches that peak sooner) than regular human insulin. As expected with this improved pharmacokinetic profile, insulin aspart demonstrates a greater glucose-lowering effect compared with regular human insulin. Numerous randomized controlled trials and a meta-analysis have also demonstrated improved postprandial control with insulin aspart compared with regular human insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, as well as efficacy and safety in children, pregnant patients, hospitalized patients, and patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Studies have demonstrated that step-wise addition of insulin aspart is a viable intensification option for patients with type 2 diabetes failing on basal insulin. Insulin aspart has shown a good safety profile, with no evidence of increased receptor binding, mitogenicity, stimulation of anti-insulin antibodies, or hypoglycemia compared with regular human insulin. In one meta-analysis, there was evidence of a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with regular human insulin and, in a trial that specifically included patients with a history of recurrent hypoglycemia, a significantly lower rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes. The next generation of insulin aspart (faster-acting insulin aspart) is being developed with a view to further improving on these pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties.

GlycA is a Novel Marker of Inflammation Among Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

GlycA is a nuclear magnetic resonance-derived signal that originates from oligosaccharide chains of acute phase proteins. The objective of this study is to characterize GlycA levels in hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. This study evaluated traditional and novel (GlycA) inflammatory markers among 121 patients who were stratified by admission diagnoses: congestive heart failure (CHF), cardiac non-CHF (CARD), infection (INF), and other (OTH). HbA1c was similar across groups (8.0-9.2%, p=0.20). Inflammatory markers were elevated but varied significantly across disease categories, with the highest values of interleukin-6 (IL-6), c-reactive protein (CRP), and GlycA in the INF group and the highest tumor necrosis factor-α and intracellular adhesion molecule-1 levels in CHF group. GlycA was associated with higher IL-6 and CRP, lower hemoglobin, and lower glomerular filtration rate. GlycA and other inflammatory markers were not significantly associated with admission glucose or HbA1c. Among hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes, GlycA was highest in INF patients and was associated with IL-6 and CRP. None of the markers were significant predictors of glucose control.

Mealtime Insulin Dosing by Carbohydrate Counting in Hospitalized Cardiology Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Carbohydrate counting may improve glycemic control in hospitalized cardiology patients by providing individualized insulin doses tailored to meal consumption. The purpose of this study was to compare glycemic outcomes with mealtime insulin dosed by carbohydrate counting versus fixed dosing in the inpatient setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study included 225 adult medical cardiology patients who received mealtime, basal, and correction-scale insulin concurrently for at least 72 h and up to 7 days in the interval March 1, 2010-November 7, 2013. Mealtime insulin was dosed by carbohydrate counting or with fixed doses determined prior to meal intake. An inpatient diabetes consult service was responsible for insulin management. Exclusion criteria included receipt of an insulin infusion. The primary end point compared mean daily postprandial glucose values, whereas secondary end points included comparison of preprandial glucose values and mean daily rates of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Mean postprandial glucose level on Day 7 was 204 and 183 mg/dL in the carbohydrate counting and fixed mealtime dose groups, respectively (unadjusted P=0.04, adjusted P=0.12). There were no statistical differences between groups on Days 2-6. Greater rates of preprandial hypoglycemia were observed in the carbohydrate counting cohort on Day 5 (8.6% vs. 1.5%, P=0.02), Day 6 (1.7% vs. 0%, P=0.01), and Day 7 (7.1% vs. 0%, P=0.008). No differences in postprandial hypoglycemia were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Mealtime insulin dosing by carbohydrate counting was associated with similar glycemic outcomes as fixed mealtime insulin dosing, except for a greater incidence of preprandial hypoglycemia. Additional comparative studies that include hospital outcomes are needed.

Predictors of recurrent hypoglycemia following a severe hypoglycemic event among hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVES

Severe hypoglycemia is associated with poor hospital outcomes, but variables contributing to the adequacy of treatment have not been described. The objective of this study was to determine predictors of recurrent hypoglycemia among hospitalized patients with a severe hypoglycemic event.

METHODS

Patients with severe hypoglycemia (glucose <40 mg/dl) with a concomitant insulin order were identified using the study institution's Information Warehouse. The primary outcome was the prevalence of recurrent hypoglycemia (defined as <70 mg/dl within 24 hours) and to identify independent predictors of recurrent hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included time to blood glucose recheck, time to blood glucose ≥ 70 mg/dl, and rebound hyperglycemia (defined as glucose >300 mg/dl within 24 hours). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients with severe hypoglycemia were identified. The median time to repeat glucose measurement was 29 (IQR 15-61) minutes, while the time to resolution of hypoglycemia was 49 (IQR 26-103) minutes. Recurrent hypoglycemia occurred in 49% of patients, while 19% of patients experienced rebound hyperglycemia. Independent predictors of recurrent hypoglycemia included lower repeat glucose (p = 0.025), low glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.033), and lack of insulin adjustment (p = 0.012). Independent predictors of maximum glucose post-event were type 1 diabetes (p = 0.0003), history of any diabetes (p = 0.013), and total bolus dose of insulin (p < 0.0001). Overnight timing of events was the only predictor of shorter time to hypoglycemia resolution (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent hypoglycemia following severe hypoglycemia is common in the hospital, suggesting the need for enhanced monitoring in such patients. Further research is needed to identify methods to reduce the incidence of recurrent hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia in the hospital: systems-based approach to recognition, treatment, and prevention

Hypoglycemia causes immediate adverse reactions and is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes and increased health care costs. It is also one of the barriers to optimization of inpatient glycemic control. Prioritizing quality improvement efforts to address hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients with diabetes is of critical importance. Acute illness, hospital routine, and gaps in quality care predispose patients to hypoglycemia. Many of these factors can be minimized when approached from a systems-based perspective. This requires creation of a multidisciplinary team to develop strategies to prevent hypoglycemic events by targeting many factors, such as systemic analysis of blood glucometrics, policies and protocols, coordination of nutrition and insulin administration, transitions of care, staff and patient education, and communication. This article reviews recommendations of the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, and the Society of Hospital Medicine, and highlights our institution's approach in each of these areas. Despite a multitude of challenges, we believe that it is feasible to improve the safety and quality of inpatient diabetes care and avoid hypoglycemia without requiring significant additional hospital resources. Physician leaders play a major role in guiding this process and encouraging participation of interdisciplinary members of the hospital team.

The Mealtime Challenge: Nutrition and Glycemic Control in the Hospital

In Brief Multiple staff members and departments have a responsibility for various aspects of nutrition therapy for glycemic management in the hospital setting. Implementation is initiated by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants and planned and operationalized by registered dietitians. Meals are delivered by food service staff, and nurses monitor and integrate glycemic control components into patients' medical treatment plan. Although nutrition therapy is recognized as an important aspect of care in the hospital setting, it can also be challenging to appropriately coordinate meals with blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration. This article addresses current mealtime practices and recommendations to improve these processes in acute care.