Hypoglycemia Rates After Restriction of High-Dose Glargine in Hospitalized Patients

Objective: Hypoglycemia remains one of the main challenges of insulin therapy. To reduce insulin-related hypoglycemia at our institution, we restricted inpatient ordering of high glargine doses (≥0.5 U/kg/day) to endocrine staff in May 2013. This retrospective cohort study assesses its effect on hypoglycemia and glycemic control within 48 hours of admission (ADM).Methods: We identified 692 adult patients hospitalized at Boston Medical Center who received glargine upon ADM from November 1, 2012 through April 30, 2013 as the pre-intervention group, and 651 adult patients admitted between November 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 as the postintervention group. Demographics, medical history, home insulin regimen, concurrent oral diabetes medications or glucocorticoid administration, ADM serum creatinine, all blood glucose levels (BG) ≤48 hours of ADM, and hemoglobin A1c values ≤3 months were assessed. Hypoglycemia was defined as BG ≤70 mg/dL, and hyperglycemia as BG ≥200 mg/dL. Multivariable regression models assessed potential associations between covariates and incidence of hypoglycemia and average BG ≤48 hours of ADM.Results: Demographics were similar between groups. Significantly less patients received high-dose glargine in the post-intervention group (5.2% vs. 0.3%, P<.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia were significantly lower in the postintervention group (20.9% vs. 17.8%, P<.001 per ADM; 3.4% vs. 2.3%, P = .001 per BG measurements [BGM]). Mean BG levels ≤48 hours of ADM and incidence of hyperglycemia were not significantly different. The adjusted incident rate ratio of hypoglycemia was 0.63 per ADM and 0.74 per BGM in the postintervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (P = .001 and P = .063, respectively).Conclusion: We found that implementation of a restriction on high doses of glargine resulted in lower rates of hypoglycemia without worsening glycemic control.Abbreviations:ADM = admissionBG = blood glucoseBGM = blood glucose measurementsBMC = Boston Medical CenterBMI = body mass indexEMR = electronic medical recordHgbA1c = hemoglobin A1cIRR = incidence rate ratioNPH = neutral protamine HagedornTDD = total daily doseT2D = type 2 diabetes     

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     

Effectiveness of Inpatient Insulin Order Sets Using Human Insulins in Noncritically Ill Patients in A Rural Hospital

Objective: Recent guidelines recommend a physiologic approach to non–intensive care unit (ICU) inpatient glucose management utilizing basal-bolus with correctional (BBC) insulin over traditional sliding-scale insulin monotherapy. Unfortunately, few studies exist using a BBC approach restricted to human insulins (regular and neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH]). This study evaluated changes in provider prescribing patterns, effects on blood glucose, and safety with implementation of hospital order sets for BBC using human insulins.Methods: Order sets were developed for non-ICU inpatients, consisting of basal, prandial, and correctional insulin using NPH and regular human insulins. Evaluation compared a 4-month period before (admissions, n = 274) with a 4-month period after order set availability (n = 302). Primary outcome was change in insulin prescribing patterns. Secondary outcomes included use of nonpreferred diabetes treatments, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mean daily blood glucose, and incidence of hypoglycemia.Results: Use of BBC insulin regimen increased from 10.6 to 27.5% after order set implementation (P<.001). Use of oral antihyperglycemic agents decreased from 24.1 to 14.9% after implementation (P = .006). Hemoglobin A_1c testing rose from 50.0 to 62.3% after (P = .003). Mean daily blood glucose improved, with an estimated mean difference of 14.4 mg/dL (95% confidence interval, 2.2 to 26.5 mg/dL) over hospital days 3 through 9 (P = .02). There was no significant change in the incidence of moderate or severe hypoglycemia.Conclusion: Implementation of hospital-wide human insulin order sets led to improvements in prescribing practices and blood glucose control, without increasing the incidence of hypoglycemia. These order sets may be useful for facilities limited by formulary and cost considerations to the use of older human insulins.Abbreviations: BBC = basal-bolus with correctional insulin ICU = intensive care unit NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn NPO = nil per os     

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     

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)     

How Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Translate Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data into Diabetes Management Decisions

Objective: To understand how patients use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data in their diabetes management.Methods: We surveyed patients who regularly used CGM (>6 days per week), using 70 questions, many scenario-based. The survey had 6 sections: patient characteristics, general CGM use, hypoglycemia prevention and management, hyperglycemia prevention and management, insulin dosing adjustments (both for incidental hyperglycemia not at meals and at mealtimes), and real-time use versus retrospective analysis.Results: The survey was completed by 222 patients with type 1 diabetes. In response to a glucose of 220 mg/dL, the average correction dose adjustment based on rate of change arrows varied dramatically. Specifically, when the CGM device showed 2 arrows up (glucose increasing >3 mg/dL/minute), respondents stated they would increase their correction bolus, on average, by 140% (range, 0 to 600%). Conversely, 2 arrows down (glucose decreasing >3 mg/dL/minute) caused respondents to reduce their dose by 42%, with 24% omitting their dose entirely. Furthermore, 59% of respondents stated they would delay a meal in response to rapidly rising glucose, whereas 60% would wait until after a meal to bolus in response to falling glucose levels. With a glucose value of 120 mg/dL and a falling glucose trend, 70% of respondents would prophylactically consume carbohydrates to avoid hypoglycemia.Conclusion: CGM users utilize CGM data to alter multiple aspects of their diabetes care, including insulin dose timing, dose adjustments, and in hypoglycemia prevention. The insulin adjustments are much larger than common recommendations. Additional studies are needed to determine appropriate insulin adjustments based on glucose trend data.Abbreviations: A_1c = hemoglobin A_1c CGM = continuous glucose monitoring ROC = rate of change SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose     

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     

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     

Safety And Efficacy Of Dpp-4 Inhibitors For The Management Of Hospitalized General Medicine And Surgery Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have been shown to be effective for the management of inpatient diabetes. We report pooled data from 3 prospective studies using DPP-4i in general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Methods: We combined data from 3 randomized studies comparing DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Medicine (n = 266) and surgery (n = 319) patients admitted with a blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated with diet, oral agents, or low-dose insulin therapy were included. Patients received DPP-4i alone (n = 144), DPP-4i plus basal insulin (n = 158) or basal-bolus regimen (n = 283). All groups received correctional doses with rapid-acting insulin for BG >140 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was differences in mean daily BG between groups. Secondary endpoints included differences in hypoglycemia and hospital complications.Results: There were no differences in mean hospital daily BG among patients treated with DPP-4i alone (170 ± 37 mg/dL), DPP-4i plus basal (172 ± 42 mg/dL), or basalbolus (172 ± 43 mg/dL), P = .94; or in the percentage of BG readings within target of 70 to 180 mg/dL (63 ± 32%, 60 ± 31%, and 64 ± 28%, respectively; P = .42). There were no differences in length of stay or complications, but hypoglycemia was less common with DPP-4i alone (2%) compared to DPP-4i plus basal (9%) and basal-bolus (10%); P = .004.Conclusion: Treatment with DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin is effective and results in a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DPP-4i = dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; OR = odds ratio; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

A Retrospective Study Comparing Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin With Glargine As Basal Therapy In Prednisone-Associated Diabetes Mellitus In Hospitalized Patients

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic outcomes in hospitalized patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) vs glargine as basal insulin for management of glucocorticoid-associated hyperglycemia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records in prednisone-treated adult patients with hyperglycemia in a university hospital. Consecutive patients were selected in both the NPH and glargine cohorts using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were assessed in each cohort. Glycemic outcomes were analyzed by comparing fasting blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose concentration, median daily blood glucose concentration, and the number of hypoglycemic episodes on a prespecified index day.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients were included: 60 patients in the NPH cohort and 60 patients in the glargine cohort. The weight-based insulin requirement was lower in the NPH cohort than in the glargine cohort (0.27 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.34 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .04] for basal insulin and 0.26 ± 0.2 units/kg vs 0.36 ± 0.2 units/kg [P = .03] for bolus insulin). NPH and glargine cohorts were similar regarding age, sex, race, body mass index, hemoglobin A_1c, serum creatinine, and prednisone dosage. Glycemic outcomes in the NPH cohort compared with outcomes in the glargine cohort were similar regarding mean fasting blood glucose concentration (134 ± 49 mg/dL vs 139 ± 54 mg/dL [P = .63]), mean daily blood glucose (167 ± 46 mg/dL vs 165 ± 52 mg/dL [P = .79]), median blood glucose (160 ± 49 mg/dL vs 159 ± 57 mg/dL [P = .90]), and number of hypoglycemic episodes per day (0.12 ± 0.3 vs 0.10 ± 0.3 [P = .77]).ConclusionsNPH and glargine appear to be equally effective as basal insulin in the management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients receiving prednisone. However, the total daily insulin doses used were lower in the NPH cohort. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:712-719)     

Temporal Occurrences and Recurrence Patterns of Hypoglycemia During Hospitalization

Objective: To describe the temporal distribution of hypoglycemia and its rate of recurrence during hospitalization to aid in the development of strategies to prevent hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients.Methods: Retrospective review of hypoglycemia (blood glucose <50 mg/dL) audit data in adult hospitalized patients at 2 academic hospitals. Demographics, timing, and blood glucose values were recorded. Antihyperglycemic medications, number of recurrent events, and change in basal insulin dose following the hypoglycemic event were also extracted.Results: A total of 274 index occurrences of hypoglycemia were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years, with roughly equal gender distributions. Twenty-eight percent of the events occurred in the absence of antihyperglycemic therapy. The incidence of hypoglycemia peaked between midnight and 6 AM. There were 36 instances of recurrent hypoglycemia associated with antihyperglycemic therapy, with 78% (n = 28) cases involving basal insulin. Patients on basal insulin who developed hypoglycemia did not have their dose changed prior to the time of the next administration in 75% of the cases.Conclusion: Hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients may occur with greater frequency overnight. Although cumbersome, routine nocturnal glycemic testing should be considered. Education regarding insulin management in the hospital and improved communication between night and day staff may aid in decreasing subsequent hypoglycemic events.Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose EHR = electronic health record ICU = intensive care unit IV = intravenous     

Impact of Multidisciplinary Process Improvement Interventions on Glucometrics in a Noncritically Ill Setting

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of multidisciplinary process improvement interventions on glycemic control in the inpatient setting of an urban community hospital, utilizing the daily simple average as the primary glucometric measure.Methods: From 2010–2014, five process of care interventions were implemented in the noncritical care inpatient units of the study hospital. Interventions included education of medical staff, implementation of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia protocols, computerized insulin order entry, and coordination of meal tray delivery with finger stick and insulin administration. Unpaired t tests compared pre- and postintervention process measures. Simple average daily glucose measure was the primary glucometric outcome. Secondary outcome measures included frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Glucose outcomes were compared with an in-network hospital that did not implement the respective interventions.Results: A total of 180,431 glucose measurements were reported from 4,705 and 4,238 patients from the intervention and comparison hospitals, respectively. The time between bolus-insulin administration and breakfast tray delivery was significantly reduced by 81.7 minutes (P<.00005). The use of sliding scale insulin was sustainably reduced. Average daily glucose was reduced at both hospitals, and overall rates of hypoglycemia were low.Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach at an urban community hospital with limited resources was effective in improving and sustaining processes of care for improved glycemic control in the noncritical care, inpatient setting.Abbreviations: IQR = interquartile range; JMC = Jacobi Medical Center; NCBH = North Central Bronx Hospital     

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     

Reduced Hypoglycemia and Comparable Efficacy with Insulin Glargine 300 U/ML Versus Insulin Glargine 100 U/ML in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Achieving Different Levels of Prebreakfast Self-Monitored Plasma Glucose

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reached prebreakfast self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) levels <100 and <130 mg/dL.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of insulin-naïve (EDITION 3, NCT01676220) and experienced (EDITION 2, NCT01499095) patients with uncontrolled T2D, randomized to 6 months of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 treatment. Endpoints included glycated hemoglobin A1c change, hypoglycemia incidence, and event rates. Separate comparisons were done for patients achieving prebreak-fast fasting glucose of <100 versus ≥100 mg/dL and <130 versus ≥130 mg/dL.Results: Efficacy did not differ significantly between treatments in either study. Overall, basal insulin doses were ~10% higher with Gla-300 versus Gla-100. EDITION 2: overall and documented (≤70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in all SMPG groups except <100 mg/dL; nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in all SMPG groups. EDITION 3: overall hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower with Gla-300 in patients with SMPG ≥100 mg/dL and those with SMPG <130 mg/dL; documented hypoglycemia rates were significantly lower in all SMPG groups except ≥130 mg/dL. Nocturnal and nocturnal documented hypoglycemia rates did not differ by treatment group. Hypoglycemia incidence did not differ by treatment in any SMPG group.Conclusion: In patients with T2D initiating basal insulin or previously treated for ≥6 months with basal insulin, Gla-300 provides similar efficacy to Gla-100 and reduces risk of hypoglycemia for many patients, despite a ~10% higher insulin dose.Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin A1c; ADA = American Diabetes Association; Gla-100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; Gla-300 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; OAD = oral antidiabetes drug; SMPG = self-monitored plasma glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes     

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     

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)     

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     

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)     

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

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

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)