The Effect of Prestudy Insulin Therapy on Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin by Pump or Injection: A Posthoc Analysis

ObjectiveWe conducted a posthoc analysis of the VIVID study (Safety and Efficacy of Human Regular U-500 Insulin Administered by Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Clinical Trial), comparing 2 delivery methods of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple daily injection (MDI), in type 2 diabetes requiring high insulin, to determine influence of prestudy insulin on glycemic outcomes.MethodsWe compared A1C, total daily insulin dose (TDD), weight, and hypoglycemia by subgroups of prestudy insulin (prestudy U-500R vs non-U-500R) and treatment (CSII vs MDI).ResultsAt baseline, prestudy U-500R had higher TDD, higher body mass index, lower A1C and fasting plasma glucose, and higher rate of hypoglycemia compared to non-U-500R. Active titration of U-500R reduced A1C in both subgroups, with maximum benefit at 8 weeks. At 26 weeks, CSII provided the greatest reduction in A1C in both subgroups, with a greater reduction in non-U-500R. MDI provided an A1C reduction in both subgroups, with the greater reduction in non-U-500R. At 8 weeks, prestudy U-500R reached its lowest A1C; thereafter, A1C rebounded with MDI and remained stable with CSII. In non-U-500R, A1C continued to decrease to study end. In non-U-500R, hypoglycemia increased during active titration, but then decreased in the posttitration maintenance period. In both subgroups, TDD increased from baseline with MDI but not with CSII. Body weight increased in both subgroups but was greater in prestudy U-500R with CSII compared to MDI.ConclusionRegardless of previous insulin, people on high-dose insulin could lower A1C with U-500R, with additional benefit from CSII. These results may provide guidance for use of U-500R in clinical practice.     

Insulin Requirements in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing Bariatric Surgery in the Inpatient Setting and Upon Discharge: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Insulin Management Strategies

ObjectiveRapid improvement in blood glucose (BG) after weight-loss surgery (WLS) can make postoperative glucose management challenging in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our study examined the safety and efficacy of insulin management strategies during hospitalization and after discharge following WLS.MethodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included 160 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing WLS. Patients with glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) level <7% (53 mmol/mol) and not on antihyperglycemic medications or metformin monotherapy were excluded. BG and insulin dosing during hospitalization and at 2-week follow-up, and impact of preoperative HbA1C level were analyzed.ResultsMean age was 46.3 years. Median preoperative HbA1C level was 8% (64 mmol/mol). Postoperatively, most patients received basal insulin plus sliding-scale insulin (SSI; 79/160, 49%) or SSI alone (77/160, 48%). The initial postoperative basal dose was 0.23 units/kg/day. The median basal insulin dose at discharge was 61% lower than preoperative dose. At 2-week follow-up, 34 of 44 patients (77%) had BG levels between 70-200 mg/dL and 1 of 44 (2.2%) had BG levels >200 mg/dL, with no hypoglycemia. Patients with HbA1C level >9% (75 mmol/mol) had higher BG on admission and during hospitalization, required higher insulin doses while hospitalized, and were more frequently discharged on insulin.ConclusionSSI is effective in managing BG in some patients immediately after WLS. However, about half of the patients may require basal insulin at doses similar to those required by other inpatients. Preoperative hyperglycemia may affect inpatient insulin needs and BG. Low-dose basal insulin appears safe and effective upon discharge for select patients.     

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

ObjectiveMeal 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsMeal 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.ConclusionThis project demonstrates that hospitalized patients treated with subcutaneous insulin have a low attributable risk of postmeal hypoglycemia related to inadequate meal intake.     

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

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of analog insulins in comparison with human insulins for hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients with acute stroke.MethodsIn 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.ResultsBetween 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).ConclusionHospitalized 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.     

Insulin Dosing and Glycemic Outcomes Among Steroid-treated Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo determine the optimal insulin-to-steroid dose ratio for the attainment of glycemic control in hospitalized patients.MethodsWe retrospectively studied data collected from the electronic health records within an academic medical center from 18 599 patient-days where patients were treated concurrently with insulin and steroids. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, which included demographic and clinical variables, were performed to assess the relationships between the exposures of total and basal insulin-to-steroid ratios and the outcomes of glycemic control (all blood glucose readings on the following patient-day were >70 and ≤180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia within 3 subgroups of steroid dosing: low (≤10-mg prednisone equivalent dose [PED]), medium (from >10-mg to ≤40-mg PED), and high (>40-mg PED).ResultsIncreased insulin-to-steroid ratio was associated with increased odds of both glycemic control and hypoglycemia. The optimal total insulin-to-steroid ratio for attaining glycemic control was 0.294 U/kg/10-mg PED in the low-dose subgroup, 0.257 U/kg/10-mg PED in the medium-dose subgroup, and 0.085 U/kg/10-mg PED in the high-dose subgroup. The optimal basal insulin-to-steroid ratio was 0.215 U/kg/10-mg PED in the low-dose subgroup, 0.126 U/kg/10-mg PED in the medium-dose subgroup, and 0.036 U/kg/10-mg PED in the high-dose subgroup.ConclusionIncreasing insulin-to-steroid ratios are positively associated with glycemic control and hypoglycemia. Our study suggests that approximately 0.3 U/kg/10-mg PED is an optimal dose for low- and medium-dose steroids, whereas approximately 0.1 U/kg/10-mg PED is an optimal dose for high-dose steroids. Further prospective studies are needed to identify insulin regimens that will optimize glycemic control in steroid-treated patients while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia.     

Weight-Based Insulin During and After Intravenous Insulin Infusion Reduces Rates of Rebound Hyperglycemia When Transitioning to Subcutaneous Insulin in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

ObjectiveHyperglycemia often occurs after the transition from intravenous insulin infusion (IVII) to subcutaneous insulin. Weight-based basal insulin initiated earlier in the course of IVII in the medical intensive care unit (MICU), and a weight-based basal-bolus regimen after IVII, can potentially improve post-IVII glycemic control by 48 hours.MethodsThis prospective study included 69 patients in MICU who were on IVII for ≥24 hours. Exclusions were end-stage renal disease, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and the active use of vasopressors. The intervention group received weight-based basal insulin (0.2-0.25 units/kg) with IVII and weight-based bolus insulin after IVII. The control group received current care. The primary end points were glucose levels at specific time intervals up to 48 hours after IVII.ResultsThere were 25 patients in the intervention group and 44 in the control group. The mean age of the patients was 59 ± 15 years, 32 (47%) were men, and 52 (78%) had prior diabetes mellitus. The 2 groups were not different (acute kidney injury/chronic kidney disease, pre-existing diabetes mellitus, illness severity, or nothing by mouth status after IVII), except for the steroid use, which was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (34% vs 12%, respectively). Glucose levels were not lower until 36 to 48 hours after IVII (166.8 ± 39.1 mg/dL vs 220.0 ± 82.9 mg/dL, P < .001). When controlling for body mass index, nutritional status, hemoglobin A1C, and steroid use, glucose level was lower starting at 12 to 24 hours out (166.87 mg/dL vs 207.50 mg/dL, P = .015). The frequency of hypoglycemia was similar between the 2 groups (5.0% vs 7.1%). The study did not reach target enrollment.ConclusionThe addition of weight-based basal insulin during, and basal-bolus insulin immediately after, IVII in MICU results in better glycemic control at 24 hours after IVII with no increased hypoglycemia.     

Assessment of Insulin Infusion Requirements in COVID-19-Infected Patients With Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Background/ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is thought to contribute to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and worse outcomes in patients with diabetes. This study compared the cumulative insulin dose required to achieve DKA resolution in the intensive care unit among patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19 infection versus without COVID-19 infection.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 100 patients—50 patients with COVID-19 in cohort 1 and 50 patients without COVID-19 in cohort 2—treated with insulin infusions for DKA at a tertiary care teaching hospital. The primary outcome was to compare the cumulative insulin dose required to achieve DKA resolution in each cohort. The secondary outcomes included time to DKA resolution, mean insulin infusion rate, and mean weight-based cumulative insulin infusion dose required to achieve DKA resolution. All endpoints were adjusted for confounders.ResultsThe mean cumulative insulin dose was 190.3 units in cohort 1 versus 116.4 units in cohort 2 (P = .0038). Patients receiving steroids had a mean time to DKA resolution of 35.9 hours in cohort 1 versus 15.6 hours in cohort 2 (P = .0014). In cohort 1 versus cohort 2, the mean insulin infusion rate was 7.1 units/hour versus 5.3 units/hour (P = .0025), whereas the mean weight-based cumulative insulin infusion dose was 2.1 units/kg versus 1.5 units/kg (P = .0437), respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19-infected patients required a significantly larger cumulative insulin dose, longer time to DKA resolution, higher insulin infusion rate, and higher weight-based insulin infusion dose to achieve DKA resolution versus non–COVID-19-infected patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: Initial Experience at a Tertiary Care Center

ObjectivePatients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia require frequent glucose monitoring, usually performed with glucometers. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are common in the outpatient setting but not yet approved for hospital use. We evaluated CGM accuracy, safety for insulin dosing, and CGM clinical reliability in 20 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia.MethodsStudy patients were fitted with a remotely monitored CGM. CGM values were evaluated against glucometer readings. The CGM sensor calibration was performed if necessary. CGM values were used to dose insulin, without glucometer confirmation.ResultsCGM accuracy against glucometer, expressed as mean absolute relative difference (MARD), was calculated using 812 paired glucometer-CGM values. The aggregate MARD was 10.4%. For time in range and grades 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, MARD was 11.4%, 9.4%, and 9.1%, respectively, with a small variation between medical floors and intensive care units. There was no MARD correlation with mean arterial blood pressure levels, oxygen saturation, daily hemoglobin levels, and glomerular filtration rates. CGM clinical reliability was high, with 99.7% of the CGM values falling within the “safe” zones of Clarke error grid. After CGM placement, the frequency of glucometer measurements decreased from 5 to 3 and then 2 per day, reducing nurse presence in patient rooms and limiting viral exposure.ConclusionWith twice daily, on-demand calibration, the inpatient CGM use was safe for insulin dosing, decreasing the frequency of glucometer fingersticks. For glucose levels >70 mg/dL, CGMs showed adequate accuracy, without interference from vital and laboratory values.     

Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Transitions of Care: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWith 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.ConclusionPockets 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.     

The Association of Diabetes and Hyperglycemia on Inpatient Readmissions

ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between inpatient glycemic control and readmission in individuals with diabetes and hyperglycemia (DM/HG).MethodsTwo data sets were analyzed from fiscal years 2011 to 2013: hospital data using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for DM/HG and point of care (POC) glucose monitoring. The variables analyzed included gender, age, mean, minimum and maximum glucose, along with 4 measures of glycemic variability (GV), standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, and average daily risk range.ResultsOf 66 518 discharges in FY 2011-2013, 28.4% had DM/HG based on ICD-9 codes and 53% received POC monitoring. The overall readmission rate was 13.9%, although the rates for individuals with DM/HG were higher at 18.9% and 20.6% using ICD-9 codes and POC data, respectively. The readmitted group had higher mean glucose (169 ± 47 mg/dL vs 158 ± 46 mg/dL, P < .001). Individuals with severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia had the highest readmission rates. All 4 GV measures were consistent and higher in the readmitted group.ConclusionIndividuals with DM/HG have higher 30-day readmission rates than those without. Those readmitted had higher mean glucose, more extreme glucose values, and higher GV. To our knowledge, this is the first report of multiple metrics of inpatient glycemic control, including GV, and their associations with readmission.     

Results of a 24-Week Trial of Technosphere Insulin Versus Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic efficacy of Technosphere insulin (TI) versus that of insulin aspart (IA), each added to basal insulin, in type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis randomized, 24-week trial included subjects aged from 18 to 80 years who were treated with subcutaneous insulin for 3 months and had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels of 7.0% to 11.5%. After receiving stabilized insulin glargine doses during a 4-week lead in, the subjects were randomized to TI or IA. The primary end point was an HbA1C change from baseline, with the differences analyzed by equivalence analyses.ResultsIn the overall cohort (N = 309; males, 23.3%), mean (SD) age was 58.5 (8.4) years, body mass index was 30.8 (4.7) kg/m², weight was 82.2 (13.6) kg, and duration of diabetes was 12.2 (7.1) years. An intention-to-treat cohort had 150 subjects randomized to TI (mean [SD] HbA1C: 8.9% [1.1%]) and 154 randomized to IA (mean [SD] HbA1C: 9.0% [1.3%]). At 24 weeks, mean (SD) HbA1C value declined to 7.9% (1.3%) and 7.7% (1.1%) in the TI and IA cohorts, respectively. A treatment difference of 0.26% was not statistically significant, but the predefined equivalency margin was not met. Subjects receiving TI lost 0.78 kg compared to baseline; subjects receiving IA gained 0.23 kg (P =.0007). The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was lower for the TI cohort, though not statistically significant.ConclusionBoth TI and IA resulted in significant and clinically meaningful HbA1C reductions. TI also resulted in significant and clinically meaningful weight reductions. These data support the use of inhaled insulin as a treatment option for individuals with type 2 diabetes.     

Efficacy of Control-IQ Technology in a General Endocrine Clinic

ObjectiveRecent advances in technology have allowed for the expanded use of hybrid closed-loop insulin pump therapy and automated insulin delivery systems for the management of diabetes mellitus. We assessed the outcomes of introducing Tandem t:slim X2 with the Control-IQ technology in a general endocrine clinic.MethodsData from 66 adults with type 1 (n = 61) and type 2 (n = 5) diabetes mellitus were aggregated for analysis. Patients were either transitioned from traditional insulin pump therapy or multiple daily injection therapy to Tandem t:slim X2 with the Control-IQ technology from January 2020 to June 2021. The assessed clinical end points included changes in time below range, time above range, and time in target range. Changes in hemoglobin A1C before and after Control-IQ technology implementation were noted. The primary outcome was a change in time in target range with the Control-IQ technology.ResultsThere was a significant increase in time in target range when comparing pre- and post–Control-IQ technology (49.5% vs 63.3%, P < .0003) values. There was a reduction in time above range (46.8% vs 34.9%, P < .0013), a decrease in time below range (4.0% vs 1.7%, P = .017), and a decrease in hemoglobin A1C after transitioning to the Control-IQ technology (7.7% [61 mmol/mol] vs 7.1% [54 mmol/mol], P < .017). The patient dropout rate was low (7%).ConclusionThe Control-IQ technology system was effective in reducing hyperglycemia while increasing time in target range and decreasing hypoglycemia. This technology is a useful and effective addition to the growing number of automated insulin delivery systems. The clinical outcomes mirror the results found in the key adult pivotal trials.     

Ultra Rapid-Acting Inhaled Insulin Improves Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of an inhaled insulin would improve HbA1c.MethodsThis study was performed in 20 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) participants with HbA1c values ≥7.5 (58) to ≤11.5% (102 mmol/mol) on a variety of glucose-lowering regimens. Prandial Technosphere insulin (TI) was rapidly titrated based on a treatment algorithm using postprandial blood glucose to calculate premeal doses. A 2-week baseline period was followed by 12 weeks of active treatment with TI. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included glucose time in range (time in range: 70-180 mg/dL) obtained by a blinded continuous glucose monitoring during the baseline period and at the end of 12 weeks. Goals were to assess how to rapidly and safely initiate TI intensification, determine dosing requirements, and establish an effective dose range in uncontrolled T2DM.ResultsMean HbA1c decreased by −1.6% (−17 mmol/mol) from 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at baseline to 7.4% (57 mmol/mol) at 12 weeks (P < .0001). Mean time in range increased from 42.2% to 65.7% (P < .0002). Mean prandial doses of TI were 18 or 19 units for all meals. Time below range was 1.1% baseline and 2.6% post treatment (P = .01).ConclusionTreatment with inhaled TI dosed using a simple algorithm improved glycemic control measured by both HbA1c and time in range, with low rates of hypoglycemia. These data add significantly to understanding TI in the management of T2DM patients for whom prandial insulin is a consideration.     

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia Including Dexamethasone-Associated Hyperglycemia in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveOptimal glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GCIH) management is unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this issue more prominent because dexamethasone became the standard of care in patients needing respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to describe the management of GCIH and summarize available management strategies for dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases with results from 2011 through January 2022. Keywords included synonyms for “steroid-induced diabetes” or “steroid-induced hyperglycemia.” Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for review of GCIH management. All studies focusing on dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 were included regardless of study quality.ResultsInitial search for non-COVID GCIH identified 1230 references. After screening and review, 33 articles were included in the non-COVID section of this systematic review. Initial search for COVID-19–related management of dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 identified 63 references, whereas 7 of these were included in the COVID-19 section. RCTs of management strategies were scarce, did not use standard definitions for hyperglycemia, evaluated a variety of treatment strategies with varying primary end points, and were generally not found to be effective except for Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin added to basal-bolus regimens.ConclusionFew RCTs are available evaluating GCIH management. Further studies are needed to support the formulation of clinical guidelines for GCIH especially given the widespread use of dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Exenatide Twice Daily Plus Glargine Versus Aspart 70/30 Twice Daily in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Inadequate Glycemic Control on Premixed Human Insulin and Metformin

ObjectiveMany patients with type 2 diabetes treated with premixed insulin gradually have inadequate glycemic control and switch to a basal-bolus regimen, which raises some concerns for weight gain and increased hypoglycemic risk. Switching to combination use of glp-1 agonist and basal insulin may be an alternative option.MethodsAfter a 12-week premixed human insulin 70/30 dosage optimization period, 200 patients with HbA1c of 7.0% to 10.0% were randomized into 24-week treatment groups with exenatide twice a day plus glargine or with aspart 70/30 twice a day.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, the patients receiving exenatide plus glargine (n = 90) had improved HbA1c control compared with those receiving aspart 70/30 (n = 90) (least squares mean change: ‒0.59 vs ‒0.13%; difference [95% CI]: ‒0.45 [‒0.74 to ‒0.17]) in the full analysis set population. Weight decreased 3.5 kg with exenatide and decreased 0.4 kg with aspart 70/30 (P < .001). The insulin dose was reduced 10.7 units/day (95% CI, ‒12.2 to ‒9.2 units; P < .001) with exenatide, and increased 9.7 units/day (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2 units; P < .001) with aspart 70/30. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal adverse effects in the exenatide group (nausea [21%], vomiting [16%], diarrhea [13%]). The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in 2 groups (27% for exenatide and 38% for aspart 70/30; P = .1).ConclusionIn premixed human insulin‒treated patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control, switching to exenatide twice a day plus glargine was superior to aspart 70/30 twice a day for glycemic and weight control.     

New Digital Health Technologies for Insulin Initiation and Optimization for People With Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveThe health and economic burden of type 2 diabetes is of global significance. Many people with type 2 diabetes eventually need insulin to help reduce their risk of serious associated complications. However, barriers to the initiation and/or optimization of insulin expose people with diabetes to sustained hyperglycemia. In this review, we investigated how new and future technologies may provide opportunities to help overcome these barriers to the initiation and/or optimization of insulin.MethodsA focused literature search of PubMed and key scientific congresses was conducted. Software tools and devices developed to support the initiation and/or optimization of insulin were identified by manually filtering >300 publications and conference abstracts.ResultsMost software tools have been developed for smartphone platforms. At present, published data suggest that the use of these technologies is associated with equivalent or improved glycemic outcomes compared with standard care, with additional benefits such as reduced time burden and improved knowledge of diabetes among health care providers. However, there remains paucity of good-quality evidence. Most new devices to support insulin therapy help track the dose and timing of insulin.ConclusionNew digital health tools may help to reduce barriers to optimal insulin therapy. An integrated solution that connects glucose monitoring, dose recording, and titration advice as well as records comorbidities and lifestyle factors has the potential to reduce the complexity and burden of treatment and may improve adherence to titration and treatment, resulting in better outcomes for people with diabetes.     

Hyperglycemia is Associated With Increased Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between hyperglycemia in the presence and absence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThe study included 133 patients with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at an urban academic quaternary-care center between March 10 and April 8, 2020. Patients were categorized based on the presence or absence of DM and early-onset hyperglycemia (EHG), defined as a blood glucose >180 mg/dL during the first 2 days after ICU admission. The primary outcome was 14-day all-cause in-hospital mortality; also examined were 60-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and the levels of C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, procalcitonin, and lactate.ResultsCompared to non-DM patients without EHG, non-DM patients with EHG exhibited higher adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality at 14 days (HR 7.51, CI 1.70-33.24) and 60 days (HR 6.97, CI 1.86-26.13). Non-DM patients with EHG also featured higher levels of median C-reactive protein (306.3 mg/L, P = .036), procalcitonin (1.26 ng/mL, P = .028), and lactate (2.2 mmol/L, P = .023).ConclusionAmong critically ill COVID-19 patients, those without DM with EHG were at greatest risk of 14-day and 60-day in-hospital mortality. Our study was limited by its retrospective design and relatively small cohort. However, our results suggest the combination of elevated glucose and lactate may identify a specific cohort of individuals at high risk for mortality from COVID-19. Glucose testing and control are important in individuals with COVID-19, even those without preexisting diabetes.     

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center,Open-Label,Randomized, Crossover Trial

ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.MethodsIn this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.ResultsFifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.ConclusionWe observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.