Effects of a Computerized Order Set on the Inpatient Management of Hyperglycemia: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of a computerized order set on the inpatient management of diabetes and hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial on the general medical service of an academic medical center staffed by residents and hospitalists. Consecutively enrolled patients with diabetes mellitus or inpatient hyperglycemia were randomized on the basis of their medical team to usual care (control group) or an admission order set built into the hospital’s computer provider order entry (CPOE) system (intervention group). All teams received a detailed subcutaneous insulin protocol and case-based education. The primary outcome was the mean percent of glucose readings per patient between 60 and 180 mg/dL.ResultsBetween April 5 and June 22, 2006, we identified 179 eligible study subjects. The mean percent of glucose readings per patient between 60 and 180 mg/dL was 75% in the intervention group and 71% in the usual care group (adjusted relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.80). In comparison with usual care, the intervention group also had a lower patient-day weighted mean glucose (148 mg/dL versus 158 mg/dL, P = .04), less use of sliding-scale insulin by itself (25% versus 58%, P = .01), and no significant difference in the rate of severe hypoglycemia (glucose < 40 mg/dL; 0.5% versus 0.3% of patient-days, P = .58).ConclusionThe use of an order set built into a hospital’s CPOE system led to improvements in glycemic control and insulin ordering without causing a significant increase in hypoglycemia. Other institutions with CPOE should consider adopting similar order sets as part of a comprehensive inpatient glycemic management program. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:209-218)     

Daily Inpatient Glycemic Survey (DINGS): A Process to Remotely Identify and Assist in the Management of Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes and Hyperglycemia

Objective: Hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability have been associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and overall costs of care in hospitalized patients. At the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, New York, a process aimed to improve inpatient glycemic control by remotely assisting primary care teams in the management of hyperglycemia and diabetes was designed.Methods: An electronic query comprised of hospitalized patients with glucose values <70 mg/dL or >350 mg/dL is generated daily. Electronic medical records (EMRs) are individually reviewed by diabetes specialist providers, and management recommendations are sent to primary care teams when applicable. Glucose data was retrospectively examined before and after the establishment of the daily inpatient glycemic survey (DINGS) process, and rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia were compared.Results: Patient-day mean glucose slightly but significantly decreased from 177.6 ± 64.4 to 173.2 ± 59.4 mg/dL (P<.001). The percentage of patient-days with any value >350 mg/dL also decreased from 9.69 to 7.36% (P<.001), while the percentage of patient-days with mean glucose values in the range of 90 to 180 mg/dL increased from 58.1 to 61.4% (P<.001). Glycemic variability, assessed by the SD of glucose, significantly decreased from 53.9 to 49.8 mg/dL (P<.001). Moreover, rates of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) decreased significantly by 41% (P<.001).Conclusion: Quality metrics of inpatient glycemic control improved significantly after the establishment of the DINGS process within our facility. Prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm a causal association.Abbreviations: DINGS = daily inpatient glycemic survey EMR = electronic medical record HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin ICU = intensive care unit VA = Veterans Affairs     

Impact of a Hypoglycemia Reduction Bundle and a Systems Approach to Inpatient Glycemic Management

Objective: Uncontrolled hyperglycemia and iatrogenic hypoglycemia represent common and frequently preventable quality and safety issues. We sought to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hypoglycemia reduction bundle, proactive surveillance of glycemic outliers, and an interdisciplinary data-driven approach to glycemic management.Methods: Population: all hospitalized adult non–intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients with hyperglycemia and/or a diagnosis of diabetes admitted to our 550-bed academic center across 5 calendar years (CYs). Interventions: hypoglycemia reduction bundle targeting most common remediable contributors to iatrogenic hypoglycemia; clinical decision support in standardized order sets and glucose management pages; measure-vention (daily measurement of glycemic outliers with concurrent intervention by the inpatient diabetes team); educational programs. Measures and analysis: Pearson chi-square value with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia management parameters across the baseline time period (TP1, CY 2009–2010), transitional (TP2, CY 2011–2012), and mature postintervention phase (TP3, CY 2013). Hypoglycemia defined as blood glucose <70 mg/dL, severe hypoglycemia as <40 mg/dL, and severe hyperglycemia >299 mg/dL.Results: A total of 22,990 non-ICU patients, representing 94,900 patient-days of observation were included over the 5-year study. The RR TP3:TP1 for glycemic excursions was reduced significantly: hypoglycemic stay, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.79); severe hypoglycemic stay, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58); recurrent hypoglycemic day during stay, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94); severe hypoglycemic day, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.62); severe hyperglycemic day (>299 mg/dL), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.80).Conclusion: Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia event rates were both improved, with the most marked effect on severe hypoglycemic events. Most of these interventions should be portable to other hospitals.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose CDS = clinical decision support CI = confidence interval CY = calendar year DIG = diabetes initiative group EHR = electronic health record ICU = intensive care unit RR = relative risk SHM = Society of Hospital Medicine TP = time period     

Glycemic Control and Outcomes of Hospitalization in Noncritically Ill Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Admitted With Cardiac Problems or Infections

ObjectiveAlthough the importance of glycemic control is well established for patients with diabetes hospitalized for surgical problems, it has not been supported by clinical studies for patients with diabetes hospitalized on the medical floors.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 378 patients with type 2 diabetes admitted for cardiac or infectious disease (ID) diagnosis between September 1, 2011, and August 1, 2012. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital stay shorter than 3 days, and daily glucocorticoid dose > 20 mg of methylprednisolone. The primary composite outcome included death during hospitalization, ICU transfer, initiation of enteral or parenteral nutrition, line infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, rise in plasma creatinine by 1 or > 2 mg/dL, new infection, an infection lasting for more than 20 days, and readmission within 30 days and between 1 and 10 months after discharge.ResultsPatients were stratified by mean blood glucose (BG) level: group 1 had mean BG of < 180 mg/dL (n = 286; mean BG, 142 ± 23 mg/dL), whereas group 2 had mean BG levels > 181 mg/dL (n = 92; mean BG, 218 ± 34 mg/dL; P < .0001). Group 2 had a 46% higher occurrence of the primary outcome (P < .0004). The rate of unfavorable events was greater in cardiac and ID patients with worse glycemic control (group 2).ConclusionOur data strongly support a positive influence of better glycemic control (average glycemia < 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) on outcomes of hospitaliza-tion in patients with type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2014; 20:1303-1308)     

The Synergy to Enable Glycemic Control Following Emergency Department Discharge Program for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Step-Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate a diabetes (DM) care delivery model among hyperglycemic adults with type 2 DM being discharged from the emergency department (ED) to home. The primary hypothesis was that a focused education and medication management intervention would lead to a greater short-term improvement in glycemic control compared to controls.Methods: A 4-week, randomized controlled trial provided antihyperglycemic medications management using an evidence-based algorithm plus survival skills diabetes self-management education (DSME) for ED patients with blood glucose (BG) levels ≥200 mg/dL. The intervention was delivered by endocrinologist-supervised certified diabetes educators. Controls received usual ED care.Results: Among 101 participants (96% Black, 54% female, 62.3% Medicaid and/or Medicare insurance), 77% completed the week 4 visit. Glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) went from 11.8 ± 2.4 to 10.5 ± 1.9% (P<.001) and 11.5 ± 2.0 to 11.1 ± 2.1% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P = .012). At 4 weeks, the difference in A1C reduction between groups was 0.9% (P = .01). Mean BG decreased for both groups (P<.001), with a higher percentage of intervention patients (65%) reaching a BG <180 mg/dL compared to 29% of controls (P = .002). Hypoglycemia rates did not differ by group, and no severe hypoglycemia was reported. Medication adherence (Modified Morisky Score©) improved from low to medium (P<.001) among intervention patients and did not improve among controls.Conclusions: This study provides evidence that a focused diabetes care delivery intervention can be initiated in the ED among adults with type 2 diabetes and hyperglycemia and safely and effectively completed in the ambulatory setting. Improvement in short-term glycemic outcomes and medication adherence were observed.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1C BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index CDE = certified diabetes educator CI = confidence interval DM = diabetes mellitus DSME = diabetes self-management education ED = emergency departmentMMAS-8 = Modified Morisky Medication Scale PCP = primary care provider POC = point of care SQ = subcutaneous     

The Management of Hyperglycemia in Noncritically ill Hospitalized Patients Treated with Continuous Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition

Objective: Hyperglycemia is a common problem in hospitalized patients receiving artificial nutrition, and this development of hyperglycemia during parenteral nutrition therapy (PNT) and enteral nutrition therapy (ENT) increases the risks of hospital-related complications and mortality. This review aims to discuss the pathogenesis of hyperglycemia from artificial nutrition in the hospital, summarize current evidence on the treatment of hyperglycemia with insulin in these patients, and review current guidelines.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “hyperglycemia,” “enteral nutrition,” and “parenteral nutrition” were used to evaluate the current evidence available for treating noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia who were receiving artificial nutrition.Results: The literature review showed that few randomized control trials exist regarding treatment of hyperglycemia in this cohort of patients, and the multiple retrospective evaluations that have addressed this topic provided varied results. In general, intravenous (IV) continuous insulin infusion offers the best glycemic control; however, this route of insulin administration is often burdensome for floor patients and their care teams. Administration of scheduled subcutaneous (SQ) insulin in patients on ENT or PNT is a safe and effective way to manage hyperglycemia, however limited data exist on an appropriate insulin regimen.Conclusion: Further prospective, randomized control trials are necessary to determine the optimal treatment of hyperglycemia for patients receiving ENT or PNT.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CG = conventional glycemic control; ENT = enteral nutrition therapy; GIP = glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1; IG = intensive glycemic control; IV = intravenous; NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn; PNT = parenteral nutrition therapy; SQ = subcutaneous; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; TDD = total daily dose; TPN = total parenteral nutrition     

Effect of An Educational Inpatient Diabetes Management Program on Medical Resident Knowledge and Measures of Glycemic Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of an Inpatient Diabetes Management Program (IDMP) on physician knowledge and inpatient glycemic control.MethodsResidents assigned to General Internal Medicine inpatient services were randomized to receive the IDMP (IDMP group) or usual education only (nonIDMP group). Both groups received an overview of inpatient diabetes management in conjunction with reminders of existing order sets on the hospital Web site. The IDMP group received print copies of the program and access to an electronic version for a personal digital assistant (PDA). A Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT) was administered at baseline and at the end of the 1-month rotation. The frequency of hyperglycemia among patients under surveillance by each group was compared by using capillary blood glucose values and a dispersion index of glycemic variability. IDMP users completed a questionnaire related to the program.ResultsTwenty-two residents participated (11 in the IDMP group and 11 in the non-IDMP group). Overall Diabetes Knowledge Test scores improved in both groups (IDMP: 69% ± 1.7% versus 83% ± 2.1%, P = .003; nonIDMP: 76% ± 1.2% versus 84% ± 1.4%, P = .02). The percentage of correct responses for management of corticosteroid-associated hyperglycemia (P = .004) and preoperative glycemic management (P = .006) improved in only the IDMP group. The frequency of hyperglycemia (blood glucose level > 180 mg/dL) and the dispersion index (5.3 ± 7.6 versus 3.7 ± 5.6; P = .2) were similar between the 2 groups.ConclusionAn IDMP was effective at improving physician knowledge for managing hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients treated with corticosteroids or in preparation for surgical procedures. Educational programs directed at improving overall health care provider knowledge for inpatient glycemic management may be beneficial; however, improvements in knowledge do not necessarily result in improved glycemic outcomes. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:238-249)     

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Continued on Oral Antidiabetes Medications in the Hospital

Objective: Basal/basal-bolus insulin with discontinuation of home oral antidiabetes medications (OADs) is the preferred method to achieve glycemic control in many hospitalized patients. We hypothesized that a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can achieve an acceptable level of blood sugar control without cessation of their OADs when hospitalized.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with T2DM who were only on OADs at home, admitted to Fairview Hospital, a community hospital in the Cleveland Clinic Health System. We divided patients into those whose OADs were continued (group 1) and those whose OADs were discontinued (group 2), with or without the addition of insulin in the hospital. Blood glucose (BG) levels and patient characteristics were compared.Results: There were 175 patients, 73 in group 1 and 102 in group 2. The percentage of patients achieving all BG values within 100 to 180 mg/dL was the same between group 1 (21.9%) and group 2 (23.8%) (P = .78). Mean BG was similar between group 1 and group 2 (146.1 ± 41.4 mg/dL versus 152.1 ± 38.9 mg/dL; P = .33), with no significant difference in terms of percentage of patients with hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. A greater proportion of patients in group 1 had an uninterrupted feeding status, nonintensive care unit admission and no contrast dye exposure, and a shorter length of stay.Conclusion: Our study shows that patients with certain characteristics could achieve an acceptable level of glycemic control without cessation of their home OADs.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl dipeptidase 4; GFR = glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; ICU = intensive care unit; LOS = length of stay; NPO = nil per os; OAD = oral antidiabetes medication; POC = point of care; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

Glycemic Control After Hospital Discharge in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Pilot Study of Daily Remote Glucose Monitoring

ObjectiveLittle is known about glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients treated with insulin in the high-risk period between hospital discharge and follow-up. We sought to assess the impact of remote glucose monitoring on postdischarge glycemic control and insulin titration.MethodsWe randomly assigned 28 hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients who were discharged home on insulin therapy to routine specialty care (RSC) or RSC with daily remote glucose monitoring (RGM). We compared the primary outcome of mean blood glucose and exploratory outcomes of hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia rates, change in hemoglobin A_1c and glycated albumin, and insulin titration frequency between groups.ResultsMean blood glucose was not significantly different between the treatment arms (144 ± 34 mg/dL in the RSC group and 172 ± 41 mg/dL in the RGM group; not significant), nor were there significant differences in any of the other measures of glycemia during the month after discharge. Hypoglycemia (glucometer reading < 60 mg/dL) was common, occurring in 46% of subjects, with no difference between groups. In as-treated analysis, insulin dose adjustments (29% with an increase and 43% with decrease in insulin dose) occurred more frequently in the patients who used RGM (average of 2.8 vs. 1.2 dose adjustments; P = .03).ConclusionIn this pilot trial in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, RGM did not affect glycemic control after hospital discharge; however, the high rate of hypoglycemia in the postdischarge transition period and the higher frequency of insulin titration in patients who used RGM suggest a safety role for such monitoring in the transition from hospital to home. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:115-121)     

Acute GIycemic Control in Hospitalized Patients: Evidence Published Since the American College of Endocrinology Position Statement

Background: In a 2004 position statement, the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) recommended that the plasma glucose level be ≤110 mg/dL (fasting) and <180 mg/dL (postprandial) for hospitalized patients not in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 80 to 110 mg/dL for hospitalized patients in the ICU, whether or not they had documented diabetes mellitus.Objective: This paper reviews published studies on this topic, with focus on those appearing after the ACE statement.Methods: Relevant studies were identified by a MEDLINE search of references and studies and by extensive familiarity with the topic.Results: The results of observational studies have been mixed and are complicated by uncertainty as to whether hyperglycemia is simply a marker of illness severity or is causally related to adverse clinical outcome.Conclusions: Intriguing evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that tight glycemic control in the hospitalized patient improves mortality and morbidity, although the above-recommended glucose target values have not been met in some studies.     

Proactive Protocol-Based Management of Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Colorectal Surgery Patients

Objective: The management of diabetic patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery continues to be unsystematic, despite evidence that standardized perioperative glycemic control is associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications. We examined the efficacy of a pre-operative diabetes optimization protocol implemented at a single institution in improving perioperative glycemic control with a target blood glucose of 80 to 180 mg/dL.Methods: Patients with established and newly diagnosed diabetes who underwent elective colorectal surgery were included. The control group comprised 103 patients from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013, before protocol implementation. The glycemic-optimized group included 96 patients following protocol implementation from January 1, 2014, through July 31, 2016. Data included demographic information, blood glucose levels, insulin doses, hypoglycemic events, and clinical outcomes (length of stay, re-admissions, complications, and mortality).Results: Patients enrolled in the glycemic optimization protocol had significantly lower glucose levels intra-operatively (145.0 mg/dL vs. 158.1 mg/dL; P = .03) and postoperatively (135.6 mg/dL vs. 145.2 mg/dL; P = .005). A higher proportion of patients enrolled in the protocol received insulin than patients in the control group (0.63 vs. 0.48; P = .01), but the insulin was administered less frequently (median [interquartile range] number of times, 6.0 [2.0 to 11.0] vs. 7.0 [5.0 to 11.0]; P = .04). Two episodes of symptomatic hypoglycemia occurred in the control group. There was no difference in clinical outcomes.Conclusion: Improved peri-operative glycemic control was observed following implementation of a standardized institutional protocol for managing diabetic patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.Abbreviations: HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c; IQR = interquartile range     

Influence Of Diabetes And Hyperglycemia On Duration Of Stay In Patients Hospitalized With Congestive Heart Failure

ObjectiveTo analyze the influence of diabetes and hyperglycemia on duration of stay in patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure (CHF).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of data for patients admitted during a 6-month period with CHF to a community teaching hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Patients were divided into diabetic and nondiabetic groups, and patients with diabetes were stratified by mean fasting plasma glucose levels into the following groups: < 110 mg/dL, 110 to 180 mg/dL, and > 180 mg/dL. The primary outcome was duration of hospitalization. Other variables included sex, age, ejection fraction, admission glucose, brain natriuretic peptide, creatinine, and other comorbidities.ResultsThe study cohort consisted of 142 patients, 49% of whom had diabetes. The duration of hospitalization was 3.23 days in the patients with diabetes versus 3.11 days in those without diabetes (P = .875). Patients with diabetes were significantly younger (71.8 versus 76.6 years; P = .027) and had a higher baseline mean creatinine level (1.4 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = .010). Patients with diabetes in the 110 to 180 mg/dL blood glucose group had shorter hospitalizations than did those in the < 110 mg/dL group (2.94 versus 3.41 days; P = .259). Only 9 patients had blood glucose levels > 180 mg/dL, and these patients had the longest hospitalizations (mean duration, 3.78 days).ConclusionThe prevalence of diabetes was higher in our study than in previously published studies of patients with CHF. Although patients with diabetes did not have significantly longer hospitalizations than those without diabetes, they were significantly younger and had higher baseline creatinine values. Hyperglycemia was an infrequent phenomenon among patients without diabetes. The patients with diabetes in the 110 to 180 mg/dL blood glucose group had shorter hospitalizations than did those in the < 110 mg/dL group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Many of the initial studies of tight glucose control were conducted in the surgical intensive care unit, but recently published evidence has raised doubt about applying these results to medical patients. We conclude that there may be no significant benefit in terms of duration of hospitalization in assigning patients with diabetes who have CHF exacerbations to tight glucose control regimens. A more liberal approach of maintaining glucose levels at 110 to 180 mg/dL may be acceptable. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:691-696)     

Safety and Efficacy of a Peri-Operative Protocol for Patients with Diabetes Treated with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion who are Admitted for Same-Day Surgery

Objective: The number of people with diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSII) with an insulin pump has risen dramatically, creating new challenges when these patients are admitted to the hospital for surgical or other procedures. There is limited literature guiding CSII use during surgical procedures.Methods: The study was carried out in a large, urban, tertiary care hospital. We enrolled 49 patients using insulin pump therapy presenting for 57 elective surgeries. We developed a CSII peri-operative glycemic management protocol (PGMP) to standardize insulin pump management in patients admitted to a same-day surgery unit (SDSU). The purpose was evaluate the safety (% capillary blood glucose (CBG) <70 mg/dL and/or pump incidents) and efficacy (first postoperative CBG ≤200 mg/dL) of the CSII PGMP. We determine the contribution of admission CBG, type of anesthesia, surgery length, and peri-operative steroid use on postoperative glycemic control.Results: Overall, 63% of patients treated according to the CSII PGMP had a first postoperative CBG ≤200 mg/dL. There were no episodes of intra- or postoperative hypoglycemia. For patients treated with the CSII PGMP, the mean postoperative CBG was lower in patients with anticipated or actual surgical length ≤120 minutes (158.1 ± 53.9 vs. 216 ± 77.7 mg/dL, P<.01). No differences were observed with admission CBG, type of anesthesia, or steroid use.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a CSII PGMP is both safe and effective for patients admitted for elective surgical procedures and provides an example of a standardized protocol for use in clinical practice.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin BG = blood glucose CBG = capillary blood glucose CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion DM = diabetes mellitus EMR = electronic medical record IV = intravenous PGMP = peri-operative glycemic management protocol SDS = same-day surgery SDSU = same-day surgery unit SQ = subcutaneous UC = usual care     

Changing to Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy for the Inpatient Management of Hyperglycemia—A Natural Experiment

Objective: Most acute-care hospitals have transitioned from sliding-scale to basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia during hospitalization, but there is limited scientific evidence demonstrating better short-term clinical outcomes using the latter approach. The present study sought to determine if using basal-bolus insulin therapy favorably affects these outcomes in noncritical care settings and, if so, whether the magnitude of benefit differs in patients with known versus newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.Methods: This natural experiment compared outcomes in 10,120 non–critically ill adults with type 2 diabetes admitted to an academic teaching hospital before and after hospital-wide implementation of a basal-bolus insulin therapy protocol. A group of 30,271 inpatients without diabetes (type 1 or 2) served as controls. Binomial models were used to compare percentages of patients with type 2 diabetes who were transferred to intensive care, experienced complications, or died in the hospital before and after implementation of the protocol, controlling for changes in the control group. The analysis also evaluated before-after changes in length of stay and glucometric indicators.Results: Implementation of basal-bolus therapy did not reduce intensive care use (the primary outcome), complications, mortality, or median length of stay, except in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (n = 234), who experienced a statistically significant decline in the incidence of complications (P<.01). The absence of effect in previously diagnosed patients was observed in spite of a 32% decline (from 3.7% to 2.5%) in the proportion of inpatient days with hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (P<.01) and a 16% decline (from 13.5% to 11.3%) in the proportion of days with hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL (P<.01).Conclusion: Despite achieving significant reductions in both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, use of basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia in non–critically ill hospitalized patients did not improve short-term clinical outcomes, except in the small minority of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. The optimal management of hyperglycemia for improving these outcomes has yet to be determined.Abbreviation: ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision     

Fasting Versus Postprandial Hyperglycemia as a Treatment Target to Lower Elevated Hemoglobin A1C

Objective: Postprandial hyperglycemia (PPHG) may need addressing when glycemic control cannot be maintained in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether glycated hemoglobin A_1c (A_1c) levels ≥7.0% can indicate postprandial defects warranting prandial therapy after optimized basal insulin therapy.Methods: From 6 clinical trials of insulin glargine treatment, data were pooled from 496 patients with A_1c ≥7.0% after 24 weeks. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were summarized according to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target achievement (<130 mg/dL), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) levels, and PPBG increments (ΔPPBG). Basal and postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia were determined.Results: After 24 weeks of insulin glargine titration, A_1c change from baseline was greater in patients with FPG <130 mg/dL versus ≥130 mg/dL (-1.35% versus -1.11%, respectively; P = .0275), but with increased confirmed hypoglycemia rates (blood glucose <70 mg/dL; 4.06 events/patient-year versus 3.31 events/patient-year; P = .0170). However, increased severe hypoglycemia rates were observed in patients with FPG ≥130 mg/dL. At week 24, postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia increased (>60% regardless of PPBG). Patients with high FPG had lower, but substantial, relative postprandial contributions versus patients achieving FPG target. A similar pattern was observed according to whether patients had a ΔPPBG ≥50 mg/dL after any meal.Conclusion: After optimized basal insulin therapy, elevated A_1c is the most effective indicator of residual PPHG, regardless of existent FPG or PPBG. When confronted with an uncontrolled A_1c after reasonable titration of basal insulin, clinicians should be aware of probable postprandial contributions to hyperglycemia and consider prandial therapy.Abbreviations:A_1c = glycated hemoglobin A_1cAUC = area under the curveAUC_B = area under the curve (basal hyperglycemia)AUC_G = total area under the curve (total glucose)AUC_N = area under the curve (normal glycemic exposure)AUC_P = area under the curve (postprandial hyperglycemia)BHG = basal hyperglycemiaFBG = fasting blood glucoseFPG = fasting plasma glucoseGLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1HE = hyperglycemic exposureOADs = oral antidiabetes drugsPPBG = postprandial blood glucoseΔPPBG = change in postprandial blood glucosePPHG = postprandial hyperglycemiaSMBG = self-monitored blood glucoseT2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus     

Association of Glycemic Control Parameters with Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Critical Illness

ObjectiveChronic critical illness (CCI) is a term used to designate patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy with associated poor outcomes. The present study assessed the impact of glycemic parameters on outcomes in a CCI population.MethodsA retrospective case series was performed including 148 patients in The Mount Sinai Hospital Respiratory Care Unit (2009-2010). Utilizing a semi-parametric mixture model, trajectories for the daily mean blood glucose (BG), BG range, and hypoglycemia rate over time identified low- (n = 87) and high-risk (n = 61) hyperglycemia groups and low- (n = 90) and high-risk (n = 58) hypoglycemia groups. The cohort was also classified into diabetes (DM, n = 48), stress hyperglycemia (SH, n = 85), and normal glucose (n = 15) groups.ResultsHospital- (28% vs. 13%, P = .0199) and 1-year mortality (66% vs. 46%, P = .0185) rates were significantly greater in the high- versus low-risk hyperglycemia groups, respectively. The hypoglycemia rate (< 70 mg/dL) was lower among ventilator-liberated patients compared to those who failed to liberate (0.092 vs. 0.130, P < .0001). In the SH group, both hospital mortality (high-risk hyperglycemia 48% and low-risk hyperglycemia 15%, P = .0013) and 1-year mortality (high-risk 74% and low-risk 50%, P = .0482) remained significantly different, while no significant difference in the diabetes group was observed. There were lower hypoglycemia rates with SH compared to diabetes (< 70 mg/dL: 0.086 vs. 0.182, P < .0001; < 40 mg/dL: 0.012 vs. 0.022, P = .0118, respectively).ConclusionTighter glycemic control was associated with improved outcomes in CCI patients with SH but not in CCI patients with diabetes. Confirmation of these findings may lead to stratified glycemic control protocols in CCI patients based on the presence or absence of diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:884-893)     

Comparison of Basal Insulin Regimens on Glycemic Variability in Noncritically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different subcutaneous basal insulin regimens on glycemic variability (GV) and hospital complications in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: This study is a post hoc analysis of 279 general medicine and surgery patients treated with either a “Basal Bolus” insulin regimen using glargine once daily and glulisine before meals or a “Basal Plus” regimen using glargine once daily plus correction doses of glulisine before meals for glucose >140 mg/dL. GV was calculated as mean delta (Δ) daily glucose, mean SD, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE).Results: Treatment with Basal Bolus and Basal Plus regimens resulted in similar mean daily glucose, hypoglycemia, length of stay (LOS), and hospital complications (all P>.05). There were no differences in GV between treatment groups by Δ change (72.5 ± 36 vs. 69.3 ± 34 mg/dL), SD (38.5 ± 18 vs. 37.1 ± 16 mg/dL) and MAGE (67.5 ± 34 vs. 66.1 ± 39 mg/dL) (all P>.05). Surgery patients treated with Basal Bolus had higher GV compared to those treated with Basal Plus (Δ daily glucose and SD: P = .02, MAGE: P = .009), but no difference in GV was found between treatment groups for the general medicine patients (P>.05). Patients with hypoglycemia events had higher GV compared to subjects without hypoglycemia (P<.05), but no association was found between GV and hospital complications (P>.05).Conclusion: Treating hospitalized, non-ICU, diabetic patients with Basal Plus insulin regimen resulted in similar glucose control and GV compared to the standard Basal Bolus insulin regimen. Higher GV was not associated with hospital complications.Abbreviations:BG = blood glucoseCV= coefficient of variationGV= glycemic variabilityICU = intensive care unitLOS = length of stayMAGE = mean amplitude of glycemic excursionsSSI = sliding scale insulinT2D = type 2 diabetesTDD =total daily dose     

Hospital Insulin Protocol Aims For Glucose Control In Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of 2 insulin protocols to treat glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in the nonintensive care hospital setting.Methods: A randomized, open-label, parallel-arm study was conducted comparing standard recommended care of complete insulin orders (CIO) (i.e., 3-part insulin regimen of long-acting basal [background], rapid-acting bolus [mealtime], and rapid-acting correction factor) to an experimental group following a regimen of Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) plus CIO (NPH-CIO). The primary outcome was mean blood glucose (BG), and the secondary outcome was percent of BG in target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL. Hypoglycemia was also evaluated.Results: Sixty-one patients completed 2 to 5 consecutive inpatient days (31 CIO; 30 NPH-CIO). Baseline mean BG results were 237.2 ± 50.2 and 221.9 ± 35.8 mg/dL (P = .30) in the CIO and NPH-CIO groups, respectively. No significant difference in overall mean BG between the 2 groups was detected; however, a significant difference arose on day 3: mean BG 181.8 ± 32.6 mg/dL (CIO) versus 157.2 ± 6.1 mg/dL (NPH-CIO) (P = .03). Moreover, the total daily doses (TDDs) of insulin did not differ: 34.8 ± 43.0 units (CIO) versus 35.8 ± 25.0 units (NPH-CIO) (P = .13). Percent of BG in target was 54.6% (CIO) and 62% (NPH-CIO) (P = .24). Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<50 mg/dL) was the same in both groups (0.1%).Conclusion: NPH added to 3-part insulin regimen (CIO) may be an effective way to a combat glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia, though further research is needed in a larger population.Abbreviations:A1C = hemoglobin A1CBG = blood glucoseCIO = complete insulin ordersDM = diabetes mellitusNPH = neutral protamine HagedornNPH-CIO = neutral protamine Hagedorn plus CIOTDD = total daily dose     

Standardized Glycemic Management and Perioperative Glycemic Outcomes in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus who Undergo Same-Day Surgery

ObjectiveTo assess the safety and effectiveness of a standardized glycemic management protocol in patients with diabetes mellitus who undergo same-day surgery.MethodsThe perioperative glycemic management protocol consisted of preoperative instructions and perioperative order sets for management of subcutaneous and intravenous insulin. Patients with known diabetes admitted to same-day surgery during a 10-month period were observed. Patient demographic information and all capillary blood glucose (CBG) values obtained during the sameday surgery visit were collected. Hyperglycemia, defined as a CBG concentration of 200 mg/dL or greater, prompted notification of the attending anesthesiologist. While use of the perioperative order sets was encouraged, the attending anesthesiologist retained the prerogative to treat according to these order sets or their usual care. Physician compliance with the standardized order sets was determined by chart review in the patients who had a documented blood glucose value of 200 mg/dL or greater.ResultsPatients managed with the standardized order sets had greater reductions in CBG values (percentage change, 35 ± 20.5% vs 18 ± 24%, P < .001) and lower postoperative CBG values (186 ± 53 mg/dL vs 208 ± 63 mg/dL, P < .05) than patients who received usual care. No cases of intraoperative or postoperative hypoglycemia (CBG < 70 mg/dL) were observed in either group.ConclusionsA systematic approach to glycemic management that includes instructions for preoperative adjustments to home diabetic medications and order sets for treatment of perioperative hyperglycemia is safe and can be more effective than usual care for ambulatory surgery patients with diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:404-411)