Basal-bolus insulin therapy and glycemic control in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review of the literature

The Future of Diabetes Therapies: New Insulins and Insulin Delivery Systems, Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Analogs, and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Type 2 Inhibitors, and Beta Cell Replacement Therapy

As the prevalence of diabetes mellitus increases, so too does the number of available treatment modalities. Many diabetic therapies available in human medicine or on the horizon could hold promise in the management of small animal diabetes. However, it is important to consider how species differences in pathophysiology, management practices and goals, and lifestyle may affect the translation of such treatment modalities for veterinary use. This review article aimed to familiarize veterinarians with the more promising novel diabetic therapies and explore their possible applications in the treatment of canine and feline diabetes mellitus.

Readmission Outcomes of Sliding Scale Insulin Compared to Basal-Bolus Insulin Prescribed at Discharge in an Insulin-Naive Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available that examine hospital readmission outcomes of sliding scale compared to basal-bolus insulin in indigent and insulin-naive patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate hospital readmission outcomes in patients who are insulin naive with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are initiated on either sliding scale or basal-bolus insulin upon hospital discharge.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, who were insulin naive, had a hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 10% or greater, and were discharged with a prescription for sliding scale or basal-bolus insulin from January 2015 to July 2018. The primary objective measured all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions. The secondary objectives measured diabetes-related 30-day hospital readmissions and HbA_1c change after 3 months of initial hospital admission. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ² test, paired sample t test, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were prescribed sliding scale insulin and 105 patients were prescribed basal-bolus insulin. The majority were male (60%), spoke English (84%), were self-pay (39%), and had a mean age of 51 ± 10.2 years, initial HbA_1c of 13% ± 1.9%, and LACE+ score of 51 ± 15.6 upon discharge. All-cause 30-day hospital readmissions occurred in 14.6% of sliding scale and 6.7% of basal-bolus insulin groups (odds ratio [OR]: 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-7.63). Hyperglycemia occurred in 7.3% of sliding scale and 0.9% of basal-bolus insulin groups. Mean HbA_1c difference for basal-bolus and sliding scale insulin was 3.3 ± 3.1 and 2.9 ± 2.7, respectively (P = 0.459).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions comparing sliding scale to basal-bolus insulin.

Sliding scale insulin for non-critically ill hospitalised adults with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder resulting from a defect in insulin secretion, function, or both. Hyperglycaemia in non-critically ill hospitalised people is associated with poor clinical outcomes (infections, prolonged hospital stay, poor wound healing, higher morbidity and mortality). In the hospital setting people diagnosed with diabetes receive insulin therapy as part of their treatment in order to achieve metabolic control. However, insulin therapy can be provided by different strategies (sliding scale insulin (SSI), basal-bolus insulin, and other modalities). Sliding scale insulin is currently the most commonly used method, however there is uncertainty about which strategy provides the best patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SSI for non-critically ill hospitalised adults with diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified eligible trials by searching MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registers. The date of the last search for all databases was December 2017. We also examined reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing SSI with other strategies for glycaemic control in non-critically ill hospitalised adult participants of any sex with diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed trials for risk of bias, and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence utilising the GRADE instrument. We synthesised data using a random-effects model meta-analysis with 95% prediction intervals, if possible, or descriptive analysis, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 720 records screened, we included eight trials that randomised 1048 participants with type 2 diabetes (387 SSI participants and 615 participants in comparator groups were available for final analysis). We included non-critically ill medical and surgical adults with the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The mean follow-up time was measured by the mean length of hospital stay and ranged between five and 24 days. The mean age of participants was 44.5 years to 71 years.Overall, we judged the risk of bias on the trial level as unclear for selection bias, high for outcome-related performance and detection bias with regard to hypoglycaemic episodes, other adverse events, and mean glucose levels, and low for all-cause mortality and length of hospital stay. Attrition bias was low for all outcome measures.Six trials compared SSI with a basal-bolus insulin scheme, three of which investigating 64% of all participants in this category also applying an SSI approach in the bolus comparator part. One trial had a basal insulin-only comparator arm, and the remaining trial used continuous insulin infusion as the comparator. For our main comparison of SSI versus basal-bolus insulin, the results were as follows. Four trials reported mortality data. One out of 268 participants in the SSI group (0.3%) compared with two out of 334 participants in the basal-bolus group (0.6%) died (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemic episodes, defined as blood glucose levels below 40 mg/dL (2.2 mmol/L), showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.00; P = 0.05; 5 trials; 667 participants; very low-certainty evidence. The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.02 and 2.57. All nine severe hypoglycaemic episodes were observed among the 369 participants on basal-bolus insulin (2.4%). The mean length of hospital stay was 0.5 days longer for the SSI group, 95% CI -0.5 to 1.4; P = 0.32; 6 trials; 717 participants; very low-certainty evidence. The 95% prediction interval ranged between -1.7 days and 2.7 days. Adverse events other than hypoglycaemic episodes, such as postoperative infections, showed a RR of 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.37; P = 0.85; 3 trials; 481 participants; very low-certainty evidence. The mean blood glucose levels ranged across basal-bolus groups from 156 mg/dL (8.7 mmol/L) to 221 mg/dL (12.3 mmol/L). The mean blood glucose level in the SSI groups was 14.8 mg/dL (0.8 mmol/L) higher (95% CI 7.8 (0.4) to 21.8 (1.2); P < 0.001; 6 trials; 717 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -3.6 mg/dL (-0.2 mmol/L) and 33.2 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). No trial reported on diabetes-related mortality or socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain which insulin strategy (SSI or basal-bolus insulin) is best for non-critically hospitalised adults with diabetes mellitus. A basal-bolus insulin strategy in these patients might result in better short-term glycaemic control but could increase the risk for severe hypoglycaemic episodes. The certainty of the body of evidence comparing SSI with basal-bolus insulin was low to very low and needs to be improved by adequately performed, well-powered RCTs in different hospital environments with well-educated medical staff using identical short-acting insulins in both intervention and comparator arms to compare the rigid SSI approach with flexible insulin application strategies.

Sliding Scale Insulin vs Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy in Long-Term Care: A 21-Day Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Efficacy, Safety and Feasibility

INTRODUCTION

Sliding scale insulin (SSI) therapy remains a common means of insulin therapy in long-term care (LTC) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite current recommendations not supportive of the form of therapy today. Lack of randomized trial data on the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin (B-BI) therapy in nursing home residents may have precluded this form of insulin administration in the LTC setting. Our study is a comparison of the efficacy of SSI (control) and B-BI (intervention) therapies during a 21-day intervention trial in older nursing home residents.

METHODS

Fourteen LTC facilities in the US participated; 110 residents with type 2 diabetes volunteered to participate; 35 failed inclusion criteria, 75 signed informed written consent, and 11 were discharged to home/hospital or withdrew consent; data from 64 participants are reported. Recent fasting blood glucose (FBG), hemoglobin A1c, and chemistries were obtained. Four glucose readings (prior to breakfast, lunch, dinner, and bedtime), oral antiglycemic drug, and insulin doses and changes, and all adverse events/serious adverse events, both those related to glucose control [hypoglycemic (<70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemic (>200 mg/dL) episodes] and those unrelated, were recorded daily. Patients were randomized to either remain on SSI or be shifted to the B-BI group.

RESULTS

Nursing home residents 80 ± 8 (standard deviation) years, 66% female participated; Control and Intervention participants had similar age, gender, race distributions, comorbidity, and 3-day average pretrial FBG levels (all P > .05). At study end, B-BI volunteers had significantly lower 3-day average FBG levels vs pretrial (P = .0231) while SSI participants had no change in 3-day average FBG (P > .05). During the trial, participants from both groups had similar rates of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, other adverse events, and hospitalizations (serious adverse events) unrelated to glucose control (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

B-BI therapy produced significantly lower average FBG levels after 21 days compared with SSI therapy; both groups had similar rates of hypo- and hyperglycemia. Switching to B-BI therapy is feasible, safe, and effective in the LTC setting.