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)     

Long-Acting Subcutaneously Administered Insulin for Glycemic Control Immediately After Cardiac Surgery

ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that subcutaneous administration of basal insulin begun immediately after cardiac surgery can decrease the need for insulin infusion in patients without diabetes and save nursing time.MethodsAfter cardiac surgery, 36 adult patients without diabetes were randomly assigned to receive either standard treatment (control group) or insulin glargine once daily in addition to standard treatment (basal insulin group). Standard treatment included blood glucose measurements every 1 to 4 hours and intermittent insulin infusion to maintain blood glucose levels between 100 and 150 mg/dL. The study period lasted up to 72 hours.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics or baseline laboratory characteristics of the 2 study groups. Mean daily blood glucose levels were lower in the basal insulin group in comparison with the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (129.3 ± 9.4 mg/ dL versus 132.6 ± 7.3 mg/dL; P = .25). The mean duration of insulin infusion was significantly shorter in the basal insulin group than in the control group (16.3 ± 10.7 hours versus 26.6 ± 17.3 hours; P = .04). Nurses tested blood glucose a mean of 8.3 ± 3.5 times per patient per day in the basal insulin group and 12.0 ± 4.7 times per patient per day in the control group (P = .01). There was no occurrence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level < 60 mg/dL) in either group.ConclusionOnce-daily insulin glargine is safe and may decrease the duration of insulin infusion and reduce nursing time in patients without diabetes who have hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17: 558-562)     

Preadmission Glycemic Control and Changes to Diabetes Mellitus Treatment Regimen After Hospitalization

ObjectiveTo evaluate treatment patterns associated with diabetes medication regimen changes after hospitalization on the basis on preadmission hemoglobin A_1c levels.MethodsIn this retrospective database analysis, patients with a diabetes diagnosis, hospitalization, and documented hemoglobin A_1c level within the 90 days leading up to hospital admission were identified in an administrative claims database. Treatment regimens were assessed before and after hospitalization. The proportion of patients who had progression, reduction, or no change in therapy was compared across hemoglobin A_1c subgroups: hemoglobin A_1c < 7.0%, hemoglobin A_1c 7.0%-7.9%, and hemoglobin A_1c ≥ 8.0%.ResultsFour hundred patients were included (192 in hemoglobin A_1c < 7.0% group, 94 in hemoglobin A_1c 7.0% 7.9% group, and 114 in hemoglobin A_1c ≥ 8.0% group). Demographically, hemoglobin A_1c subgroups did not differ significantly (mean age, 57 years; 47.5% male). With respect to therapeutic regimen overall, 28%, 24%, and 48% of patients experienced progression, reduction, and no change, respectively. Across hemoglobin A_1c subgroups, 37.7% of patients in the hemoglobin A_1c ≥ 8.0% subgroup had therapy progression compared with 26% and 20.2% in the hemoglobin A_1c < 7.0% and hemoglobin A_1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroups, respectively (P = .032 and P = .006, respectively). Within the progression category, progression via insulin initiation was significantly higher in the hemoglobin A_1c ≥ 8.0% subgroup (55.8%) than in the hemoglobin A_1c < 7.0% subgroup (16%, P < .001), but not significantly higher than in the hemoglobin A_1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroup (36.8%, P = .084). In the hemoglobin A_1c ≥ 8.0% subgroup, a lower percentage of patients, 35.1%, experienced no therapy change than in both the hemoglobin A_1c < 7.0% subgroup (52.6%) and the hemoglobin A_1c 7.0%-7.9% subgroup (54.3%) (P = .003 and P = .006, respectively). There was no difference between subgroups in reduction of therapy.ConclusionsA higher proportion of patients with a hemoglobin A_1c level ≥ 8.0% had progression of their antidiabetes therapy after hospitalization and fewer patients had no change in therapy than those in lower hemoglobin A_1c subgroups. These data suggest that clinicians may be using hemoglobin A_1c measurements to guide discharge planning treatment decisions. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:371-375)     

Glycemic Control by A Glucose Management Service and Infection Rates After Liver Transplantation

ObjectiveTo present an analysis of glycemic control before and after introduction of a dedicated glucose management service (GMS) and outcomes within 1 year after liver transplantation (LT).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing LT, who were treated with insulin infusions after LT, before and after introduction of a GMS. Outcome measures within 1 year after LT included graft rejection, infection, prolonged ventilation (> 48 hours on a ventilator), and graft survival. A multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between GMS use and outcomes.ResultsThis study consisted of 73 (35 GMS and 38 non-GMS) organ transplant recipients. The mean perioperative blood glucose level in the GMS group was lower than in the non-GMS group: unadjusted, by 31.1 mg/dL (P = .001); adjusted for pre-insulin drip glucose, age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and type of transplant, by 23.4 mg/dL (P = .020). There were 27 rejection episodes, 48 infections, 26 episodes of prolonged ventilation, and 64 patients with graft survival at 1 year. The infection rate was lower in the GMS group than in the non-GMS group: the unadjusted odds ratio was 0.28 (P = .015); when adjustments were made for pre-insulin drip glucose, pretransplant glucose, age, sex, MELD score, type of transplant, and diabetes status before transplantation, the odds ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.97; P = .045). No significant associations were noted between GMS group and rejection rates, prolonged ventilation, or graft survival.ConclusionIn this study of LT patients, a GMS was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced postoperative infections. Further studies investigating effects of strict glycemic control after LT are warranted. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:546-551)     

The Effect of Comorbidity on Glycemic Control and Systolic Blood Pressure in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cohort Study with 5 Year Follow-Up in Primary Care

Aims

To explore the longitudinal effect of chronic comorbid diseases on glycemic control (HbA₁C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in type 2 diabetes patients.

Methods

In a representative primary care cohort of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands (n = 610), we tested differences in the five year trend of HbA₁C and SBP according to comorbidity profiles. In a mixed model analysis technique we corrected for relevant covariates. Influence of comorbidity (a chronic disease already present when diabetes was diagnosed) was tested as total number of comorbid diseases, and as presence of specific disease groups, i.e. cardiovascular, mental, and musculoskeletal disease, malignancies, and COPD. In subgroup effect analyses we tested if potential differences were modified by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and BMI.

Results

The number of comorbid diseases significantly influenced the SBP trend, with highest values after five years for diabetes patients without comorbidity (p = 0.005). The number of diseases did not influence the HbA₁C trend (p = 0.075). Comorbid musculoskeletal disease resulted in lower HbA₁C at the time of diabetes diagnosis, but in higher values after five years (p = 0.044). Patients with cardiovascular diseases had sustained elevated levels of SBP (p = 0.014). Effect modification by socioeconomic status was observed in some comorbidity subgroups.

Conclusions

Presence of comorbidity in type 2 diabetes patients affected the long-term course of HbA₁C and SBP in this primary care cohort. Numbers and types of comorbidity showed differential effects: not the simple sum of diseases, but specific types of comorbid disease had a negative influence on long-term diabetes control parameters. The complex interactions between comorbidity, diabetes control and effect modifiers require further investigation and may help to personalize treatment goals.     

胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后强化血糖控制的疗效分析

目的：探讨胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后强化血糖控制的临床疗效及其对预后的影响。方法：根据不同血糖控制方法,将96例胃癌合并糖尿病术后患者分为强化血糖控制组50例（血糖控制在4.4-6.1mol/L）和对照组46例（血糖控制在6.1~11.1mol/L）。监测患者术后1、3、7天的空腹血糖（FBG）、空腹胰岛素定量（FINS）、及C反应蛋白（CRP）水平,并计算胰岛素抵抗指数（HOMA-IR）,比较分析两组术后恢复情况及并发症发生情况。结果：术后1、3、7天,强化血糖控制组FBG、lnHOMA-IR及CRP水平均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;术后1天两组间FINS水平差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,而术后3、7天,二者之间差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;强化血糖控制组术后发热时间、排气时间、抗生素使用时间与对照组相比明显缩短,差异有统计学意义（P〉0.05）;强化血糖控制组术后并发症的发生率2.0%,显著低于对照组13.0%,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论：强化血糖控制可改善胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后胰岛素抵抗,减轻术后的炎性反应,降低术后并发症,改善患者预后。     

胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后强化血糖控制的疗效分析

目的:探讨胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后强化血糖控制的临床疗效及其对预后的影响。方法:根据不同血糖控制方法,将96例胃癌合并糖尿病术后患者分为强化血糖控制组50例(血糖控制在4.4-6.1mol/L)和对照组46例(血糖控制在6.1~11.1mol/L)。监测患者术后1、3、7天的空腹血糖(FBG)、空腹胰岛素定量(FINS)、及C反应蛋白(CRP)水平,并计算胰岛素抵抗指数(HOMA-IR),比较分析两组术后恢复情况及并发症发生情况。结果:术后1、3、7天,强化血糖控制组FBG、lnHOMA-IR及CRP水平均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后1天两组间FINS水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而术后3、7天,二者之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);强化血糖控制组术后发热时间、排气时间、抗生素使用时间与对照组相比明显缩短,差异有统计学意义(P>0.05);强化血糖控制组术后并发症的发生率2.0%,显著低于对照组13.0%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:强化血糖控制可改善胃癌合并糖尿病患者术后胰岛素抵抗,减轻术后的炎性反应,降低术后并发症,改善患者预后。     

Inpatient Glycemic Control on the Vascular Surgery Service

ObjectiveTo describe a structured inpatient insulin management protocol and order set for glycemic control on a vascular surgery service.MethodsPatients admitted to the vascular surgery service with underlying diabetes were enrolled in a study of use of a preprinted basal-bolus insulin order set based on a total daily dose of 0.5 U/kg (0.25 U/kg of insulin glargine and 0.25 U/kg of insulin aspart divided into 3 equal mealtime doses). Outcomes included the mean glycemic control at each of 5 established time intervals, the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, the incidence of hypoglycemia, and the insulin dosages. Historical control patients with diabetes from the same hospital service were used for comparison.ResultsBoth the study group and the control group consisted of 26 patients. The number of finger-stick blood glucose measurements performed was 871 in the control group and 896 in the intervention group. The mean blood glucose level (± SD) for the intervention group was 149.4 ± 50.7 mg/dL, in comparison with 165.2 ± 64.4 mg/dL for the control group. The incidence of hypoglycemia decreased 50% in the intervention group—from 32 (4% of the finger-stick assessments in the control group) to 19 (2% of the finger-stick blood glucose measurements in the study group). The blood glucose target range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was achieved in 75% of the measurements in the study group versus 61% in the control group. The basal insulin dose was unchanged in 65% of the patients, and of the 9 patients requiring a change in the dose, 5 had the dose decreased by 10% and 4 had the dose increased by 10%.ConclusionThe use of a standardized basal-bolus weight-based insulin regimen was successful at achieving improved glycemic control as well as reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia in an inpatient population with diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:185-192)     

服务蓝图在出入院服务流程优化中的应用及效果分析

目的 对出入院服务流程进行梳理与优化,提高服务效率、改善患者体验。方法 利用服务蓝图确定住院患者的出入院服务体验、内部服务流程、后台支持保障系统等,并对服务效率和患者体验进行评价。结果 在某三甲综合性医院建立出入院服务中心,统筹协调所有出入院相关服务后,患者术前待床时间、办理出入院手续时间、术前检查等待时间和往返距离,均比去年同期有所降低。结论 将服务蓝图应用于医院出入院服务流程的优化,通过资源合理配置、跨部门协作、信息平台支撑、规章制度保障,能够有效地保障患者安全、提高运行效率、提高患者满意度。     

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     

Determinants of Glycemic Control among Insulin Treated Diabetic Patients in Southwest Ethiopia: Hospital Based Cross Sectional Study

Background

Good glycemic control reduces the risk of diabetic complications. Despite this, achieving good glycemic control remains a challenge in diabetic patients. The objective of this study is to identify determinants of glycemic control among insulin treated diabetic patients at Jimma University Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia.

Methods

Hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted on systematically sampled 284 insulin-treated diabetic patients with a regular follow up. Data was collected by interviewing patients during hospital visits and reviewing respective databases of September 2010 to December 2011. Data collection took place from February 20 to May 20, 2012. Poor glycemic control was defined as fasting blood sugar (FBS) ≥126 mg/dL. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of poor glycemic control.

Results

Patients had a mean age of 41.37 (±15.08) years, 58.5% were males, the mean duration of insulin treatment was 4.9 (±5.1) years, 18.3% achieved good glycemic control (FBS≤126 mg/dL), 95% self-reported repeated use of disposable insulin syringe-needle and 48% correctly rotating insulin injection sites. Most (83.1%) of study participants had one or more complications. On multivariable logistic regression analyses, body weight of >70 Kg (AOR = 0.21; P<0.001), total daily dose of insulin ≤35 IU/day (AOR = 0.26; P<0.001), total daily dose variation without checking glycemic level (AOR = 3.39; P = 0.020), knowledge deficit about signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (AOR = 3.60; P = 0.004), and non-adherence to dietary management (AOR = 0.35; P = 0.005) were independent predictors of poor glycemic control.

Conclusions

The proportion of patients with poor glycemic control was high, which resulted in the development of one or more complications regardless of duration on insulin treatment. Hence, appropriate management of patients focusing on the relevant associated factors and independent predictors of poor glycemic control would be of great benefit in glycemic control.