Update on Inpatient Glycemic Control in Hospitals in the United States

ObjectiveTo provide data on glucose control in hospitals in the United States, analyzing measurements from the largest number of facilities to date.MethodsPoint-of-care bedside glucose (POC-BG) test results were extracted from 575 hospitals from January 2009 to December 2009 by using a laboratory information management system. Glycemic control for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU areas was assessed by calculating patient-day-weighted mean POC-BG values and rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. The relationship between POC-BG levels and hospital characteristics was determined.ResultsA total of 49,191,313 POC-BG measurements (12,176,299 ICU and 37,015,014 non-ICU values) were obtained from 3,484,795 inpatients (653,359 in the ICU and 2,831,436 in non-ICU areas). The mean POC-BG was 167 mg/dL for ICU patients and 166 mg/dL for nonICU patients. The prevalence of hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/ dL) was 32.2% of patient-days for ICU patients and 32.0% of patient-days for non-ICU patients. The prevalence of hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) was 6.3% of patient-days for ICU patients and 5.7% of patient-days for non-ICU patients. Patient-day-weighted mean POC-BG levels varied on the basis of hospital size (P < .01), type (P < .01), and geographic location (P < .01) for ICU and non-ICU patients, with larger hospitals (≥ 400 beds), academic hospitals, and US hospitals in the West having the lowest mean POC-BG values. The percentage of patient-days in the ICU characterized by hypoglycemia was highest among larger and academic hospitals (P < .05) and least among hospitals in the Northeast (P < .001).ConclusionHyperglycemia is common in hospitals in the United States, and glycemic control may vary on the basis of hospital characteristics. Increased hospital participation in data collection may support a national benchmarking process for the development of optimal practices to manage inpatient hyperglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:853-861)     

Characterizing Glucose Changes Antecedent to Hypoglycemic Events in the Intensive Care Unit

ObjectiveTo determine whether patterns of glucose changes before hypoglycemia vary according to the severity of the event.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis, point-ofcare blood glucose (POC-BG) data were obtained from the intensive care units (ICUs) of a convenience sample of hospitals that responded to a survey on inpatient diabetes management quality improvement initiatives. To evaluate POC-BG levels before hypoglycemic events, data from patients who experienced hypoglycemia during their time in the ICU were examined, and their glucose changes were assessed against a comparison group of patients who achieved a glycemic range of 80 to 110 mg/dL without ever experiencing hypoglycemia. Absolute glucose decrease, glucose rate of change, and glucose variability before hypoglycemic events (< 40, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 mg/ dL) were calculated.ResultsA total of 128 419 POC-BG measurements from 2942 patients in 89 ICUs were analyzed. Patients who experienced the most severe hypoglycemic episodes had the largest absolute drop in their glucose levels before the event (P < .001). The glucose rate of change before a hypoglycemic event increased with worsening hypoglycemia: mean (± standard deviation) glucose rate of change was-1.69 (± 2.98) mg/dL per min before an episode with glucose values less than 40 mg/dL, -0.56 (± 2.65) mg/dL per min before an episode with glucose values 60 to 69 mg/dL, but only -0.39 (± 0.70) for patients who attained a glucose range of 80 to 110 mg/dL without hypoglycemia (P < .001). Glucose variability before an event progressively increased with worsening biochemical hypoglycemia and was least among patients achieving glucose concentrations in the 80 to 110-mg/dL range without hypoglycemia (P < .001).ConclusionsAntecedent glucose change and variability were greater for patients who experienced hypoglycemia. If monitored, these patterns could potentially alert clinicians and help them take preventive measures. Further examination of how these parameters interact with other predisposing risk factors for hypoglycemia is warranted. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:317-324)     

Benchmarking Glycemic Control In U.S. Hospitals

ObjectiveReport data on glucose control from 635 U.S. hospitals.MethodsPoint-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) test data from January through December 2012 from 635 facilities were extracted. Glucose control was evaluated using patient-day–weighted mean POC-BG values. We calculated hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia rates, stratified by presence or absence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and we evaluated the relationship between glycemic control and hospital characteristics.ResultsIn total, 51,375,764 POC-BG measurements (non-ICU, 39,197,762; ICU, 12,178,002) from 2,612,966 patients (non-ICU, 2,415,209; ICU, 575,084) were analyzed. The mean POC-BG was 167 mg/dL for non-ICU patients and 170 mg/dL for ICU patients. The prevalence of hyperglycemia (defined as glucose value > 180 mg/dL) was 32.3 and 28.2% in non-ICU and ICU patients, respectively. The prevalence of hypoglycemia (defined as glucose value < 70 mg/dL) was 6.1 and 5.6% in non-ICU and ICU patients, respectively. In non-ICU and ICU settings, the patient-day–weighted mean glucose was highest in the smallest hospitals, in rural hospitals, and in hospitals located in the Northeast (all P < .01). For non-ICU patients, we observed a significant difference in the percentage of patient days with hypoglycemia by geographic region only (P < .001). In ICU patients, the prevalence of hypoglycemia varied significantly by hospital type (P < .03) and geographic region (P < .01).ConclusionIn this largest POC-BG data set analysis conducted to date, glycemic control varied according to hospital characteristics. Our findings remain consistent with previous reports. Among other variables, national benchmarking of inpatient glucose data will need to consider differences in hospital characteristics. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:876-883)     

Computerized Physician Order Entry- Based Hyperglycemia Inpatient Protocol and Glycemic Outcomes: The CPOE-HIP Study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of implementing a computerized physician order entry (CPOE)-based hyperglycemia inpatient protocol (HIP) on glycemic outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study compared blood glucose values, hemoglobin A_1c values, diabetes medication profiles, and demographic data of diabetic patients admitted to medicine services between March 15, 2006, and April 11, 2006 (before CPOE-HIP protocol was adopted), with data of diabetic patients admitted between October 3, 2007, and October 30, 2007 (1 year after CPOE-HIP protocol was implemented).ResultsA total of 241 diabetic patients comprised the pre-CPOE-HIP group and 197 patients comprised the post-CPOE-HIP group. After the protocol was adopted, there was a decrease of 10.8 mg/dL in the mean glucose concentration per patient-day (175.5 ± 81.2 mg/dL vs 164.7 ± 82 mg/dL, P < .001). Additional glycemic control improvements included a 5% increase in patient-days with serum glucose concentrations between 70 and 150 mg/ dL (41.1% vs 46.1%, P = .008) and a 3.1% decrease in patient-days with glucose concentrations above 299 mg/dL (16.9% vs 13.8%, P = .023). The percentage of patientdays with glucose concentrations less than or equal to 50 mg/dL was not significantly different (0.95% vs 1.27%, P = .15). Compliance with the American Diabetes Association recommendation for hemoglobin A_1c inpatient testing frequency increased from 37.3% to 64.5% (P < .001). The length of stay did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsImplementation of a hospital-wide, CPOE-based, hyperglycemia management protocol had a favorable impact onglucose targets, decreasing excessively high glucose levels without increasing clinically meaningful hypoglycemic events. Compliance with hemoglobin A_1c testing recommendations also improved. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:389-397)     

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)     

Diabetes and Hyperglycemia Quality Improvement Efforts in Hospitals in the United States: Current Status,Practice Variation,and Barriers to Implementation

ObjectiveTo determine the status of diabetes and hyperglycemia quality improvement efforts in hospitals in the United States.MethodsWe designed and administered a survey to a convenience sample of hospitals, and the responses were analyzed statistically.ResultsWe received 269 responses from 1,151 requested surveys. The sample was similar to hospitals in the United States on the basis of hospital type and geographic region (P = no significant difference) but not on the basis of number of beds (P < .001). Among responding hospitals, 39%, 21%, and 15% had fully implemented inpatient diabetes and hyperglycemia quality improvement programs for critically ill, non-critically ill, and perioperative patients, respectively. Moreover, 77%, 44%, and 49% had fully implemented protocols for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemic crises, and diabetic ketoacidosis, respectively. Variations in glucose target ranges were noted. The responding hospitals had no standard biochemical definition of hypoglycemia; 47% defined hypoglycemia as a glucose level ≤ 70 mg/dL, but 29%, 8%, 6%, and 4% used < 60, ≤ce:hsp sp="0.10"/>50, < 40, and < 80 mg/dL, respectively. Almost a third of reporting hospitals had no metric to track the quality of inpatient diabetes and hyperglycemia care. More than half (59%) indicated that they did not have an automated capability to extract and analyze glucose data. The most frequent barrier to implementing a glycemic control program was concern regarding hypoglycemia (61%).ConclusionHospitals are addressing the issue of inpatient diabetes and glycemic control but face obstacles to implementation of quality improvement programs and vary in their approach to management. Improving the consistency of glucose control practices within hospitals in the United States should help enhance patient care and safety. Future efforts to help hospitals overcome barriers to introducing glucose control programs could include developing standardized glycemic control metrics, improving data collection and reporting methods, and providing improved tools that enable clinicians to control glucose safely. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:219-230)     

Overcoming Clinical Inertia in the Management of Postoperative Patients with Diabetes

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of an intervention designed to increase basal-bolus insulin therapy administration in postoperative patients with diabetes mellitus.MethodsEducational sessions and direct support for surgical services were provided by a nurse practitioner (NP). Outcome data from the intervention were compared to data from a historical (control) period. Changes in basalbolus insulin use were assessed according to hyperglycemia severity as defined by the percentage of glucose measurements > 180 mg/dL.ResultsPatient characteristics were comparable for the control and intervention periods (all P ≥ .15). Overall, administration of basal-bolus insulin occurred in 9% (8/93) of control and in 32% (94/293) of intervention cases (P < .01). During the control period, administration of basal-bolus insulin did not increase with more frequent hyperglycemia (P = .22). During the intervention period, administration increased from 8% (8/96) in patients with the fewest number of hyperglycemic measurements to 60% (57/95) in those with the highest frequency of hyperglycemia (P < .01). The mean glucose level was lower during the intervention period compared to the control period (149 mg/dL vs. 163 mg/dL, P < .01). The proportion of glucose values > 180 mg/dL was lower during the intervention period than in the control period (21% vs. 31% of measurements, respectively, P < .01), whereas the hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) frequencies were comparable (P = .21).ConclusionAn intervention to overcome clinical inertia in the management of postoperative patients with diabetes led to greater utilization of basal-bolus insulin therapy and improved glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia. These efforts are ongoing to ensure the delivery of effective inpatient diabetes care by all surgical services. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:320-328)     

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     

Identifying Risk Factors for Severe Hypoglycemia in Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes

ObjectiveSome of the deleterious effects of hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients include increased rates of mortality and longer length of stay. Our primary objective was to identify the risk factors associated with severe hypoglycemia to identify those patients at highest risk.MethodsThe medical records of 5,026 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) admitted in 2010 were reviewed to identify those patients that developed severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] < 40 mg/dL). We performed c2 tests to assess statistical significance. Adjusted logical regression was used to determine the risk factors for hypoglycemia in the hospital.ResultsOut of 5,026 DM patients included in our review, 81 experienced severe hypoglycemia (1.6%). Statistically higher proportions of chronic kidney disease (CKD; 69.1% vs. 46.9%, P < .001), congestive heart failure (CHF; 48.1% vs. 28.5%, P < .001), sepsis (49.4% vs. 12.5%, P < .001), insulin use (45.7% vs. 26.04%, P = .000), type 1 DM (21% vs. 5.1%, P = .000), and cirrhosis (14.8% vs. 7.2%, P = .009) were seen in the severe hypoglycemic group compared to the nonsevere hypoglycemic group. Overall, 84% of patients who experienced an episode of severe hypoglycemia in the hospital (BG < 40 mg/dL) had a previous episode of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). The odds ratios (ORs) for type 1 DM, sepsis, previous hypoglycemia, and insulin use were 3.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81, 6.49), 2.64 (95% CI 1.6, 4.35), 46.1 (95% CI 24.76, 85.74), and 1.66 (95% CI 1.02, 2.69), respectively.ConclusionPrior episodes of hypoglycemia in the hospital, the presence of type 1 DM, insulin use, and sepsis were identified as independent risk factors for the development of severe hypoglycemia in the hospital. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1051-1056)     

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)     

Decreased Mortality with Tight Glycemic Control in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in a Large Community Hospital System

ObjectiveTo measure the efficacy and possible adverse consequences of tight blood glucose (BG) control when compared to relaxed control.MethodsA retrospective, observational study was conducted at a community-based teaching hospital system among adult, nonmaternity hospitalized patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Tight glycemic control of BG was compared with less strict BG control, and the following outcome measurements were compared: BG, average length of stay (ALOS), severe hypoglycemia, and mortality.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2012, 18,919 patients were admitted to the ICU. The mortality rate was significantly lower (P = .0001) in patients with an average BG between 80 and 110 mg/dL (8%) and 111 and 140 mg/dL (9.4%) than in patients with average BG between 141 and 180 mg/dL (12.9%). Using tight glycemic control (80 to 110 mg/dL), the ALOS in the ICU decreased from 4 to 2.9 days (P < .0001) among all patients, and from 4.2 to 2.1 days (P < .0001) among patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass graft. Comparatively, the ALOS for the hospital decreased from 9.4 to 8 days. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) was higher (P = .01) in the tight BG control group (4.78%) compared with the relaxed control group (3.5%). This rate was lower than in previously published studies that analyzed the use of tight control.ConclusionTight glycemic control using protocolbased insulin administration resulted in a decrease in mortality and ALOS among all patients in the ICU. The incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes was slightly higher in the tightly controlled group but remained lower than in previously published studies. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20: 907-918)     

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)     

Diabetes Duration and the Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine Versus Comparator Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of diabetes duration on efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insulin glargine versus comparator (oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs], dietary changes, or other insulins).MethodsData were pooled from randomized controlled clinical trials conducted in adults with T2DM with at least 24-week treatment with insulin glargine or a comparator, where predefined insulin titration algorithms were utilized to achieve fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of ≤ 100 mg/dL. Glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C), FPG, and insulin dose and safety (hypoglycemia) outcomes were analyzed.ResultsNine studies were included in the analysis of 2,930 patients. Patients with shorter duration of diabetes were more likely to have greater reductions in A1C compared with those who had longer-duration disease (P < .0001). Disease duration did not affect change in FPG concentrations (P = .9017), but lower weight-adjusted insulin dose was correlated with longer-duration disease (P < .0001). Patients with longer-duration diabetes had increased risks of symptomatic hypoglycemia, confirmed hypoglycemia (self-monitored blood glucose < 50 mg/dL and < 70 mg/dL), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (all P < .001). No significant relationship was found between severe hypoglycemia and duration of diabetes. However, treatment with insulin glargine lowered A1C values more effectively than comparator treatments with fewer hypoglycemic episodes.ConclusionPatients with shorter-duration T2DM better achieved target A1C levels and had less hypoglycemia than those with longer disease duration. Insulin glargine was associated with reduced A1C and fewer hypoglycemic events than comparators, regardless of disease duration. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:120-128)     

Eating and Glycemic Control Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Intravenous Insulin

Objective: Consensus guidelines recommend that intensive care unit (ICU) patients with blood glucose (BG) levels >180 mg/dL receive continuous intravenous insulin (CII). The effectiveness of CII at controlling BG levels among patients who are eating relative to those who are eating nothing by mouth (nil per os; NPO) has not been described.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 260 adult patients (156 eating, 104 NPO) admitted to an ICU between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, who received CII. Patients were excluded for a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperglycemic hyperosmolar nonketotic syndrome, admission to an obstetrics service, or receiving continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition.Results: Among 22 baseline characteristics, the proportion of patients receiving glucocorticoid treatment (GCTx) (17.3% eating, 37.5% NPO; P<.001) and APACHE II score (15.0 ± 7.5 eating, 17.9 ± 7.9 NPO; P = .004) were significantly different between eating and NPO patients. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of patient-day weighted mean BG overall (153 ± 8 mg/dL eating, 156 ± 7 mg/dL NPO; P = .73), or day-by-day BG (P = .37) adjusted for GCTx and APACHE score. Surprisingly, there was a significant difference in the distribution of BG values, with eating patients having a higher percentage of BG readings in the recommended range of 140 to 180 mg/dL. However, eating patients showed greater glucose variability (coefficient of variation 23.1 ± 1.0 eating, 21.2 ± 1.0 NPO; P = .034).Conclusion: Eating may not adversely affect BG levels of ICU patients receiving CII. Whether or not prandial insulin improves glycemic control in this setting should be studied.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CII = continuous insulin infusion; CV = coefficient of variation; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; ICU = intensive care unit; NPO = nil per os; PDWMBG = patient day weighted mean blood glucose     

Economic and Clinical Impact of Inpatient Diabetic Hypoglycemia

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical and economic impact of hypoglycemia that develops during hospitalization of patients with diabetes.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, data from 70 hospitals were used to identify the first inpatient encounter for adult patients with diabetes. Patients were included if all blood glucose measurements were 70 mg/dL or higher during the first 24 hours and their primary discharge diagnosis was for a condition other than hypoglycemia. Those who developed laboratory evidence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL after 24 hours) were compared with patients whose blood glucose values were all 70 mg/dL or higher. An alternative definition of hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 50 mg/dL after 24 hours) was also evaluated. We adjusted for potential confounders with multivariate models.ResultsHypoglycemia had an adverse effect on all outcomes among more than 100 000 diabetic patients. After adjustment, patients with diabetes who developed hypoglycemia had higher charges (38.9%), longer lengths of stay (3.0 days), higher mortality (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11), and higher odds of being discharged to a skilled nursing facility (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-1.69) than diabetic patients without hypoglycemia (P < .01 for all). In all cases, using the lower threshold (< 50 mg/dL) to define hypoglycemia resulted in similar findings with a larger magnitude of differences.ConclusionsAlthough a direct causal relationship cannot be inferred, these study findings suggest the importance of carefully maintaining euglycemia during hospitalizations. Whether the observed worse outcomes were due to hypoglycemia itself or whether they were a marker of worse outcomes due to other causes requires further research. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:302-312)     

Inpatient Hypoglycemic Events in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Glycemic Control in a High-Risk Population

Objective: Inpatient hypoglycemia (glucose ≤70 mg/dL) is a limitation of intensive control with insulin. Causes of hypoglycemia were evaluated in a randomized controlled trial examining intensive glycemic control (IG, target 140 mg/dL) versus moderate glycemic control (MG, target 180 mg/dL) on post–liver transplant outcomes.Methods: Hypoglycemic episodes were reviewed by a multidisciplinary team to calculate and identify contributing pathophysiologic and operational factors. A subsequent subgroup case control (1:1) analysis (with/without) hypoglycemia was completed to further delineate factors. A total of 164 participants were enrolled, and 155 patients were examined in depth.Results: Overall, insulin-related hypoglycemia was experienced in 24 of 82 patients in IG (episodes: 20 drip, 36 subcutaneous [SQ]) and 4 of 82 in MG (episodes: 2 drip, 2 SQ). Most episodes occurred at night (41 of 60), with high insulin amounts (44 of 60), and during a protocol deviation (51 of 60). Compared to those without hypoglycemia (n = 127 vs. n = 28), hypoglycemic patients had significantly longer hospital stays (13.6 ± 12.6 days vs. 7.4 ± 6.1 days; P = .002), higher peak insulin drip rates (17.4 ± 10.3 U/h vs. 13.1 ± 9.9 U/h; P = .044), and higher peak insulin glargine doses (36.8 ± 21.4 U vs. 26.2 ± 24.3 U; P = .035). In the case-matched analysis (24 cases, 24 controls), those with insulin-related hypoglycemia had higher median peak insulin drip rates (17 U/h vs. 11 U/h; P = .04) and protocol deviations (92% vs. 50%; P = .004).Conclusion: Peak insulin requirements and protocol deviations were correlated with hypoglycemia.Abbreviations:DM = diabetes mellitusICU = intensive care unitIG = intensive glycemic controlMELD = Model for End-stage Liver DiseaseMG = moderate glycemic controlSQ = subcutaneous     

Patient Outcomes after Implementation of a Protocol for Inpatient Insulin Pump Therapy

ObjectiveTo determine the safety and the results of use of an inpatient insulin pump protocol (IIPP).MethodsIn this quality improvement initiative, review of medical records of bedside capillary blood glucose (CBG) levels and pump-related adverse events was performed on 50 consecutive inpatients admitted to the hospital with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) after implementation of our IIPP. Patients were categorized in 3 groups on the basis of evidence in the medical records for IIPP in combination with inpatient diabetes service consultation (group 1; n = 34), for IIPP alone (group 2; n = 12), or for usual care (group 3; n = 4). Patients identified during hospital admission as using CSII therapy were invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire for inpatient CSII use.ResultsMean CBG levels were similar among the 3 groups (groups 1, 2, and 3: 173 ± 43 mg/dL versus 187 ± 62 mg/dL versus 218 ± 46 mg/dL, respectively). Although there were more patient-days with blood glucose > 300 mg/ dL in group 3 (P = .02), there were no significant group differences in the frequency of hypoglycemia (CBG < 70 mg/ dL). Only 1 pump malfunction and 1 infusion site problem were reported among all study patients. No serious adverse events related to CSII therapy occurred. The majority of patients (86%) reported satisfaction with their ability to continue CSII use in the hospital.ConclusionPatients using CSII as outpatients are candidates for inpatient diabetes self-management. Inexperience with these devices on the part of hospital personnel together with the limited studies of patient experience with CSII in the hospital contributes to inconsistencies in management of these patients. An IIPP provides a standardized and safe approach to the use of CSII in the hospital. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:415-424)     

A Comparison of Twice-Daily Biphasic Insulin Aspart 70/30 and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin and Oral Therapy: A Randomized,Open-Label Study

ObjectiveTo compare efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with insulin (glargine) in type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn a 24-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin (glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn) + oral antidiabetic drugs were randomly assigned to twice-daily BIAsp 30 + metformin or oncedaily glargine + metformin + secretagogues (secretagogues were discontinued in the BIAsp 30 arm).ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the BIAsp 30 group and 143 patients were randomly assigned to the glargine group. Of 280 patients randomized, 229 (81.8%) completed the study. End-of-trial hemoglobin A_1c reductions were − 1.3% (BIAsp 30) vs − 1.2% (glargine) (treatment difference: 95% confidence interval, − 0.06 [− 0.32 to 0.20]; P = .657). Of patients taking BIAsp 30, 27.3% reached a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7.0% compared with 22.0% of patients taking glargine (treatment difference: P = .388). Glucose increment averaged over 3 meals was lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (treatment difference: − 17.8 mg/dL, P = .001). Fasting plasma glucose reductions from baseline were − 13.8 mg/ dL (BIAsp 30) vs − 42.5 mg/dL (glargine) (P = .0002). Final minor hypoglycemia rate, insulin dose, and weight change were higher in the BIAsp 30 arm (6.5 vs 3.4 events/patient per year, P <.05; 1.19 vs 0.63 U/kg; and 3.1 vs 1.4 kg, P = .0004, respectively).ConclusionsDespite not receiving secretagogues, patients taking BIAsp 30 + metformin achieved similar hemoglobin A_1c levels and lower postprandial plasma glucose compared with those receiving glargine + metformin + secretagogues. The large improvement in the glargine group suggests the patients were not true basal failures at randomization. While switching to BIAsp 30 improves glycemic control in this patient population, remaining on basal insulin and optimizing the dose may be equally effective in the short term. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:41-50)     

Colesevelam Hydrochloride to Treat Hypercholesterolemia and Improve Glycemia in Prediabetes: A Randomized,Prospective Study

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of the bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride in patients with hypercholesterolemia and prediabetes.MethodsIn this 16-week, randomized, double-blind study, adults with untreated prediabetes (2-hour postoral glucose tolerance test [OGTT] glucose ≥ 140 to 199 mg/dL, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 110 to 125 mg/ dL, or both), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dL, and triglycerides < 500 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam (3.75 g/d) or placebo. The primary end point was percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 16 with last observation carried forward. Secondary end points included change in FPG, hemoglobin A1c (A1C), and 2-hour post-OGTT glucose level from baseline to week 16 and attainment of LDL-C and FPG targets.ResultsIn total, 216 patients were randomized (colesevelam, 108; placebo, 108). In comparison with placebo, colesevelam significantly reduced LDL-C (mean treatment difference, -15.6%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-9.1%), total cholesterol (-7.2%), apolipoprotein B (-8.1%) (P < .001 for all the foregoing), FPG (median, -2.0 mg/dL; P = .02), and A1C (mean, -0.10%; P = .02). Colesevelam did not significantly change 2-hour post-OGTT glucose (-1.9 mg/dL; P = .75) or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.5%; P = .80). In addition, colesevelam significantly increased triglyceride levels relative to placebo (median, 14.3%; P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving target levels with colesevelam versus placebo, respectively, was as follows: LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (29% versus 11%; P < .001), A1C < 6.0% (37% versus 25%; P = .05), FPG < 110 mg/dL (48% versus 56%; P = .97), and normalization of glucose (FPG < 100 mg/dL [40% versus 23%; P = .06]). Colesevelam had a weight-neutral effect and was well tolerated.ConclusionColesevelam is an option for managing the lipid profile and normalizing glucose levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia and prediabetes. Further study is warranted to determine whether colesevelam slows or prevents progression of prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:617-628)     

Basal-Bolus Regimen With Insulin Analogues Versus Human Insulin in Medical Patients with type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Latin America

Objective: Few randomized studies have focused on the optimal management of non–intensive care unit patients with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. We compared the safety and efficacy of a basal-bolus regimen with analogues and human insulins in general medicine patients admitted to a University Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay.Methods: In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized 134 nonsurgical patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL to a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 66) or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) twice daily and regular insulin before meals (n = 68). Major outcomes included differences in daily BG levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events between treatment groups.Results: There were no differences in the mean daily BG (157 ± 37 mg/dL versus 158 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .90) or in the number of BG readings within target <140 mg/dL before meals (76% versus 74%) between the glargine/glulisine and NPH/regular regimens. The mean insulin dose in the glargine/glulisine group was 0.76 ± 0.3 units/kg/day (glargine, 22 ± 9 units/day; glulisine, 31 ± 12 units/day) and was not different compared with NPH/regular group (0.75 ± 0.3 units/kg/day [NPH, 28 ± 12 units/day; regular, 23 ± 9 units/day]). The overall prevalence of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) was similar between patients treated with NPH/regular and glargine/glulisine (38% versus 35%; P = .68), but more patients treated with human insulin had severe (<40 mg/dL) hypoglycemia (7.6% versus 25%; P = .08). There were no differences in length of hospital stay or mortality between groups.Conclusion: The basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues resulted in equivalent glycemic control and frequency of hypoglycemia compared to treatment with human insulin in hospitalized patients with diabetes.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index HbA_1c = glycated hemoglobin NPH = Neutral Protamine Hagedorn T2D = type 2 diabetes