Benefits of a simple glycaemic protocol in an orthopaedic surgery ward: a randomized prospective study

Impact of type 2 diabetes on surgical site infections and prognosis post orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The escalating prevalence of type 2 diabetes raises concerns about adverse postoperative outcomes like surgical site infections (SSIs) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in orthopaedic surgeries. This meta-analysis aims to resolve inconclusive evidence by systematically quantifying the risks in type 2 diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic individuals.

METHODS

The meta-analysis was conducted adhering to the PRISMA guidelines and based on the PICO framework. Four primary databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, with no temporal restrictions. Studies included were either prospective or retrospective cohort studies published in English or Chinese, which assessed orthopaedic surgical outcomes among adult type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic patients. The meta-analysis employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment and used both fixed-effect and random-effects models for statistical analysis based on the level of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Out of 951 identified articles, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The odds ratio (OR) for developing postoperative SSIs among diabetic patients was 1.63 (95% CI: 1.19-2.22), indicating a significantly elevated risk compared to non-diabetic subjects. Conversely, no statistically significant difference in the risk of postoperative DVT was found between the two groups (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.55-1.22). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 2 diabetes are at a higher risk of developing SSIs post orthopaedic surgery compared to non-diabetic individuals. However, both groups demonstrated comparable risks for developing postoperative DVT.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Perioperative Identification and Management of Hyperglycemia in Orthopaedic Surgery

➤

The consequences of undermanaged perioperative hyperglycemia are notable and can have a serious impact on adverse postoperative outcomes, especially surgical site infections and periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs).

➤

Preoperative screening of hemoglobin A1c with a goal threshold of <7.45% is ideal.

➤

There are a variety of risk factors that contribute to hyperglycemia that should be considered in the perioperative period, including glucocorticoid use, nutritional factors, patient-specific factors, anesthesia, and surgery.

➤

There are expected trends in the rise, peak, and fall of postoperative blood glucose levels, and identifying and treating hyperglycemia as swiftly as possible are the fundamental aims of treatment and improved glucose control. Performing frequent postoperative blood glucose monitoring (in the post-anesthesia care unit, on the day of surgery at 1700 and 2100 hours, and in the morning of postoperative day 1) should be considered to allow for the early detection of alterations in glucose metabolism. In addition, instituting a postoperative dietary restriction of carbohydrates should be considered.

➤

The use of insulin as a hypoglycemic agent in orthopaedic patients is relatively safe and is an effective means of controlling fluctuating blood glucose levels. Insulin therapy should be administered to treat hyperglycemia at ≥140 mg/dL when fasting and ≥180 mg/dL postprandially. Insulin therapy should be ceased at blood glucose levels of <110 mg/dL; however, monitoring for glycemic dysregulation should be continued. In all cases of complex diabetes, consultation with diabetes specialty services should be considered.

➤

The emerging use of technology, including continuous subcutaneous insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring, is an exciting area of further research and development as such technology can more immediately detect and correct aberrations in blood glucose levels.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Adult Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Adult patients with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. These patients are at increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes in the absence of defined approaches to glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the 2012 Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients in Non-Critical Care Settings: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address emerging areas specific to the target population of noncritically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly recognized or stress-induced hyperglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative and experts in systematic reviews and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to inpatient management of patients with diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. The systematic reviews queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 frequently encountered areas specific to glycemic management in the hospital for which 15 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for hospital use of emerging diabetes technologies including continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy; insulin regimens for prandial insulin dosing, glucocorticoid, and enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia; and use of noninsulin therapies. Recommendations were also made for issues relating to preoperative glycemic measures, appropriate use of correctional insulin, and diabetes self-management education in the hospital. A conditional recommendation was made against preoperative use of caloric beverages in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of important outcomes, practicality, feasibility, and patient values and preferences. These recommendations can be used to inform system improvement and clinical practice for this frequently encountered inpatient population.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures

CONTEXT

Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.

Managing Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery to Improve Glycemic Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Persons with diabetes are more likely to require orthopedic surgery and are at an increased risk of developing postoperative complications. Recognizing the impact of diabetes on musculoskeletal health provides an opportunity to educate healthcare professionals in standardizing the perioperative approach of persons with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevated hemoglobin A1C, fructosamine, and blood glucose levels have been associated with increased risk for complications in the orthopedic population. These risks can be mitigated by the early identification and optimization of these patients in the perioperative period. Intraoperative and postoperative glycemic management should support efforts to maintain glucose at safe levels while avoiding hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. This paper considers factors surrounding diabetes care in the orthopedic surgical patient. Perioperative care discussed includes optimization, hospitalization to discharge, and special considerations such as steroids and diabetes wearable technology. Hospitals should consider these strategies towards enhancing the care of persons with diabetes requiring musculoskeletal care.

Inpatient Glycemic Control With Sliding Scale Insulin in Noncritical Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Who Can Slide?

OBJECTIVE

Despite clinical guideline recommendations, sliding scale insulin (SSI) is widely used for the hospital management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We aimed to determine which patients with T2D can be appropriately managed with SSI in non-critical care settings.

METHODS

We used electronic health records to assess inpatient glycemic control in medicine and surgical patients treated with SSI according to admission blood glucose (BG) concentration between June 2010 and June 2018. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with T2D achieving target glycemic control, defined as mean hospital BG 70 to 180 mg/dL without hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL during SSI therapy.

RESULTS

Among 25,813 adult patients with T2D, 8,095 patients (31.4%) were treated with SSI. Among patients with admission BG <140 mg/dL and BG 140 to 180 mg/dL, 86% and 83%, respectively, achieved target control without hypoglycemia, as compared with only 18% of those with admission BG ≥250 mg/dL (P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), race, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and setting, the odds of poor glycemic control increased with higher admission BG (BG 140-180 mg/dL: odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.2; BG 181-250 mg/dL: OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.1-4.4; BG >250 mg/dL: OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 5.8-9.0), as compared with patients with BG <140 mg/dL. A total of 1,192 patients (15%) treated with SSI required additional basal insulin during hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Most non-intensive care unit patients with admission BG <180 mg/dL treated with SSI alone achieve target glycemic control during hospitalization, suggesting that cautious use of SSI may be a viable option for certain patients with mild hyperglycemia.

Management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia in the hospital

Hyperglycaemia in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital is associated with a substantial increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Professional societies have recommended insulin therapy as the cornerstone of inpatient pharmacological management. Intravenous insulin therapy is the treatment of choice in the critical care setting. In non-intensive care settings, several insulin protocols have been proposed to manage patients with hyperglycaemia; however, meta-analyses comparing different treatment regimens have not clearly endorsed the benefits of any particular strategy. Clinical guidelines recommend stopping oral antidiabetes drugs during hospitalisation; however, in some countries continuation of oral antidiabetes drugs is commonplace in some patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital, and findings from clinical trials have suggested that non-insulin drugs, alone or in combination with basal insulin, can be used to achieve appropriate glycaemic control in selected populations. Advances in diabetes technology are revolutionising day-to-day diabetes care and work is ongoing to implement these technologies (ie, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery) for inpatient care. Additionally, transformations in care have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote inpatient diabetes management-research is needed to assess the effects of such adaptations.

Subcutaneous Insulin Dosing Calculators for Inpatient Glucose Control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to summarize information about insulin dosing software and calculators used as computerized decision support systems or electronic glucose management systems (eGMS). These are used for hospitalized, insulin-treated patients with diabetes. We describe the advantages and disadvantages and the rationale for their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

We compared commercially available insulin dosing software, namely, Glucommander™, EndoTool®, GlucoStabilizer®, and GlucoTab®, in addition to computerized order entry systems that are available in electronic health records. The common feature among these eGMS is their ability to limit occurrences of hypoglycemia while achieving and maintaining patients at target blood glucose level. More research needs to be done examining the efficacy of eGMS in disease-specific states and their benefits and utility in preventing adverse outcomes. Their long-term benefits to health care systems are beginning to emerge in cost-saving benefits and prevention of readmissions.

A MULTICENTER STUDY EVALUATING PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF INPATIENT GLYCEMIC CONTROL AMONG RESIDENT PHYSICIANS: ANALYZING THEMES TO INFORM AND IMPROVE CARE

Objective: In this descriptive study, we evaluated perceptions and knowledge of inpatient glycemic control among resident physicians. Methods: We performed this study at four academic medical centers: the University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Virginia Health System, University of Louisville Health Sciences Center, and Emory University. We designed a questionnaire, and Institutional Review Board approval was granted at each institution prior to study initiation. We then administered the questionnaire to Internal Medicine and Medicine-Pediatric resident physicians. Results: A total of 246 of 438 (56.2%) eligible resident physicians completed the Inpatient Glycemic Control Questionnaire (IGCQ). Most respondents (85.4%) reported feeling comfortable treating and managing inpatient hyperglycemia, and a majority (66.3%) agreed they had received adequate education. Despite self-reported comfort with knowledge, only 51.2% of respondents could identify appropriate glycemic targets in critically ill patients. Only 45.5% correctly identified appropriate inpatient random glycemic target values in noncritically ill patients, and only 34.1% of respondents knew appropriate preprandial glycemic targets in noncritically ill patients. A small majority (54.1%) were able to identify the correct fingerstick glucose value that defines hypoglycemia. System issues were the most commonly cited barrier to successful inpatient glycemic control. Conclusion: Most respondents reported feeling comfortable managing inpatient hyperglycemia but had difficulty identifying appropriate inpatient glycemic target values. Future interventions could utilize the IGCQ as a pre- and postassessment tool and focus on early resident education along with improving system environments to aid in successful inpatient glycemic control. Abbreviations: DM = diabetes mellitus; Emory = Emory University Healthcare; IGC = inpatient glycemic control; IGCQ = Inpatient Glycemic Control Questionnaire; IRB = Institutional Review Board; PGY = postgraduate year; UMMC = University of Mississippi Medical Center; UVA = University of Virginia Health System; UL = University of Louisville Health Sciences Center.

Construction and preliminary evaluation of the inpatient glycemic control questionnaire (IGCQ): a survey tool assessing perceptions and knowledge of resident physicians

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, with or without diabetes mellitus, is associated with many adverse outcomes. Resident physicians are the primary managers of inpatient glycemic control (IGC) in many academic and community medical centers; however, no validated survey tools related to their perceptions and knowledge of IGC are currently available. As identification of common barriers to successful IGC amongst resident physicians may help foster better educational interventions (ultimately leading to improvements in IGC and patient care), we sought to construct and preliminarily evaluate such a survey tool.

METHODS

We developed the IGC questionnaire (IGCQ) by using previously published but unvalidated survey tools related to physician perspectives on inpatient glycemic control as a framework. We administered the IGCQ to a cohort of resident physicians from the University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Louisville, Emory University, and the University of Virginia. We then used classical test theory and Rasch Partial Credit Model analyses to preliminarily evaluate and revise the IGCQ. The final survey tool contains 16 total items and three answer-choice categories for most items.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-six of 438 (56.2%) eligible resident physicians completed the IGCQ during various phases of development.

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed and preliminarily evaluated the IGCQ, a survey tool that may be useful for future research into resident physician perceptions and knowledge of IGC. Future studies could seek to externally validate the IGCQ and then utilize the survey tool in pre- and post-intervention assessments.

GlucoTab-guided insulin therapy using insulin glargine U300 enables glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate efficacy, safety and usability of the GlucoTab system for glycaemic management using insulin glargine U300 in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this open, non-controlled single-arm pilot study, glycaemic control at the general ward of a tertiary care hospital was guided by a mobile decision support system (GlucoTab) for basal-bolus insulin dosing using the novel basal insulin analogue insulin glargine U300 for the first time. Glycaemic control was surveilled with capillary glucose measurements and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary endpoint was efficacy of glycaemic management, defined as the percentage of blood glucose measurements within the target range of 3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with T2D (12 female; age, 67 ± 11 years; HbA1c, 70 ± 26 mmol/mol; BMI, 31.8 ± 5.6 kg/m² ; length of study, 8.5 ± 4.5 days) were included. In total, 894 capillary glucose values and 49 846 data points of CGM were available, of which 56.1% of all measured capillary glucose values and 54.3% of CGM values were within the target area (3.9-7.8 mmol/L). Overall capillary mean glucose was 8.5 ± 1.2 and 8.4 ± 1.2 mmol/L assessed by CGM. Time within glucose target improved continuously during the course of treatment, while time within hypoglycaemia (<3.9 mmol/L) decreased substantially. The GlucoTab-suggested total daily dose was accepted by staff in 97.3% of situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with GlucoTab using insulin glargine U300 in hospitalized patients with T2D is effective and safe.

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.

Mobile phone generated vibrations used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

In the current United Kingdom population the incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy is increasing. The presence of diabetic neuropathy affects decision making and treatment options. This study seeks to evaluate if the vibrations generated from a mobile phone can be used to screen patients for diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

METHODS

This study comprised of 61 patients; a control group of 21 patients; a lower limb injury group of 19 patients; a diabetic peripheral neuropathy group of 21 patients. The control and injury group were recruited randomly from fracture clinics. The diabetic peripheral neuropathy group were randomly recruited from the diabetic foot clinic. The 61 patients were examined using a 10g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, a 128Hz tuning fork and a vibrating mobile phone. The points tested were, index finger, patella, lateral malleoli, medial malleoli, heel, first and fifth metatarsal heads.

RESULTS

The most accurate location of all the clinical tests was the head of the 1st metatarsal at 0.86. The overall accuracy of the tuning fork was 0.77, the ten gram monofilament 0.79 and the mobile phone accuracy was 0.88. The control group felt 420 of 441 tests (95%). The injury group felt 349 of 399 tests (87%). The neuropathic group felt 216 of 441 tests (48%). There is a significant difference in the number of tests felt between the control and both the injury and neuropathic groups. p<0.0001 using N-1 Two Proportion Test.

CONCLUSION

A mobile phone is an accurate screening tool for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The most accurate location to test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy is the head of the 1st metatarsal. Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the index finger and patella were inaccurate. An injury to the lower limb affects the patient's vibration sensation, we would therefore recommend screening the contralateral limb to the injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This study represents level II evidence of a new diagnostic investigation.

Efficacy of basal-bolus insulin regimens in the inpatient management of non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hyperglycemia during hospitalization is associated with increased rates of complications and longer hospital stays. Various insulin regimens are used in the inpatient diabetes management of non-critically ill patients. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin therapy (BBI) by summarizing evidence from studies of BBI versus sliding scale insulin therapy (SSI) in the management of hospitalized non-critically ill type 2 diabetes patients. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing BBI therapy with SSI therapy in hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome was mean daily blood glucose (BG) during admission. Secondary outcomes were incidence of hypoglycemia and length of hospital stay. Results of included randomized controlled trials (RCT) were pooled and meta-analysed to provide estimates of the efficacy of BBI therapy. Five RCTs and seven observational studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed significantly lower mean daily BG with BBI than SSI. Mean difference in daily BG between the two regimens ranged from 14 to 29 mg/dl. BBI therapy was associated with increased risk of mild hypoglycemia (BG ≤ 70 mg/dl, RR 5.75; 95% CI 2.79-11.83), (BG ≤ 60 mg/dl, RR 4.21; 95% CI 1.61-11.02) compared with SSI therapy. There was no difference in risk of severe hypoglycemia (BG ≤ 40 mg/dl) and no difference in mean length of stay. In conclusion, basal-bolus insulin in the inpatient diabetes management results in significantly lower mean daily BG than sliding scale insulin but is associated with increased risk of mild hypoglycemia.

Impact of a multifaceted strategy to improve perioperative diabetes care

AIMS

To assess the impact of a multifaceted strategy to improve perioperative diabetes care throughout the hospital care pathway.

METHODS

We conducted a controlled before-and-after study in six hospitals. The purpose of the strategy was to target four predominant barriers that obstruct optimal care delivery. We provided feedback on baseline indicator performance, developed a multidisciplinary protocol and patient information, and provided professional education. After a 6-month intervention, we determined the performance changes against three outcome indicators and nine process indicators using data on 811 patients with diabetes who underwent major surgery. The progress of the interventions was monitored closely.

RESULTS

Two process indicators improved significantly in the intervention hospitals: the proportion of patients for whom glycaemic control had been evaluated preoperatively increased by 9% (P < 0.002) and the proportion of patients with blood glucose measurements within 1 h after surgery increased by 29% (P < 0.0001). Four other process indicators and all three outcome indicators improved more in the intervention hospitals than in the control hospitals, but the differences were not statistically significant. These included the proportion of patients with all glucose values at 6-10 mmol/l (+3%) and the proportion of patients with hyperglycaemia (-8%). The implementation of the multidisciplinary protocol was still ongoing after the 6-month intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

The multifaceted improvement strategy had a limited impact on the quality of perioperative diabetes care. This study demonstrates the complexity of improving perioperative diabetes care throughout the multiprofessional hospital care pathway.

Comparison of Basal-Bolus and Premixed Insulin Regimens in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Premixed insulin is a commonly prescribed formulation for the outpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes. The safety and efficacy of premixed insulin formulations in the hospital setting is not known.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective, open-label trial, we randomized general medicine and surgery patients to receive a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 33) or premixed human insulin (30% regular insulin and 70% NPH insulin) twice daily (n = 39). Major outcomes included differences in daily blood glucose (BG) levels and frequency of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dL) between treatment groups.

RESULTS

At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early because of an increased frequency of hypoglycemia >50% in patients treated with premixed human insulin. A total of 64% of patients treated with premixed insulin experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia compared with 24% in the basal-bolus group (P < 0.001). There were no differences in mean daily BG level after the first day of insulin treatment (175 ± 32 vs. 179 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.64) between groups. A BG target between 80 and 180 mg/dL before meals was achieved in 55.9% of BG readings in the basal-bolus group and 54.3% of BG readings in the premixed insulin group (P = 0.23). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay or mortality between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient treatment with premixed human insulin resulted in similar glycemic control but in significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia compared with treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Sliding-scale insulin used for blood glucose control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sliding-scale insulin has been widely used in treating inpatient hyperglycemia. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and possible adverse effects of sliding-scale insulin in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for studies published up to May 2015. Individual effect sizes were standardized, and a meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size using random effects models.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs containing a total of 1322 patients were identified. Among eight studies in which the RISS was compared with other regimens, no significant difference was observed in the percentage of patients who achieved the mean blood glucose level between the two groups, which was determined according to the numbers of blood samples (RR: 2.84; 95% CI: 0.94 to 8.59) and patients (RR: 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55). The mean blood glucose level (weighted mean difference=27.33, 95% CI: 14.74 to 39.92) and incidence of hyperglycemic events were significantly higher in the RISS group than in the non-sliding-scale group. No significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia and length of hospitalization between the groups was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results of the meta-analysis indicated that applying the RISS alone or in combination with other antidiabetic medications did not provide any benefits in blood glucose control, but was accompanied by an increased incidence of hyperglycemic events. Therefore, we suggest that the use of sliding-scale insulin be discontinued in hospitals.

Efficacy of a hyperglycemia treatment program in a Vascular Surgery Department supervised by Endocrinology

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the strategy and efficacy of a hyperglycemia treatment program supervised by Endocrinology.

METHODS

All patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized at the vascular surgery department over a 12 month period were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics and hyperglycemia treatment during hospitalization, at discharge and 2-6 month after discharge were collected. Glycemic control was assessed using capillary blood glucose profiles and HbA1c at admission and 2-6 months post-discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 140 hospitalizations of 123 patients were included. The protocol to choose the insulin regimen was applied in 96.4% of patients (22.8% correction dose, 23.6% basal-correction dose and 50% basal-bolus-correction dose [BBC]). Patients with BBC had higher HbA1c (7.7±1.5% vs. 6.7 ±0.8%; P<.001) and mean glycemia on the first day of hospitalization (184.4±59.2 vs. 140.5±31.4mg/dl; P<.001). Mean blood glucose was reduced to 162.1±41.8mg/dl in the middle and 160.8±43.3mg/dl in the last 24h of hospitalization in patients with BBC (P=.007), but did not change in the remaining patients. In 22.1% patients with treatment changes performed at discharge, HbA1c decreased from 8.2±1.6 to 6.8±1.6% at 2-6 months post-discharge (P=.019).

CONCLUSIONS

The hyperglycemia treatment protocol applied by an endocrinologist in the hospital, allows the identification of the appropriate therapy and the improvement of the glycemic control during hospitalization and discharge, supporting its efficacy in clinical practice.

Efficacy and feasibility of basal-bolus insulin regimens and a discharge-strategy in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes--the HOSMIDIA study

AIMS

Guidelines recommend use of basal-bolus insulin in hospitalised patients with hyperglycaemia, but information about implementation and medication reconciliation at discharge is scarce. The HOSMIDIA study evaluated a management program involving basal-bolus insulin and an algorithm for medication reconciliation at discharge in non-critically ill hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice.

METHODS

HOSMIDIA was a prospective, observational study performed during routine clinical practice at 15 Spanish hospitals during hospitalisation, with follow-up 3 months postdischarge. Study patients (n = 134) received a basal-bolus regimen with insulin glargine during hospitalisation and treatment at discharge was adjusted according to a simple algorithm. The control group (n = 62) included patients with similar characteristics hospitalised during the month before study initiation and had no follow-up after discharge.

RESULTS

Compared with control subjects, patients in the prospective study achieved lower mean total (167.7 ± 41.1 vs. 190.5 ± 53.3 mg/dl) preprandial (164.2 ± 42.4 vs. 189.6 ± 52.6 mg/dl; p < 0.001) and fasting (137.0 ± 42.2 vs. 165.8 ± 56.5 mg/dl) blood glucose levels while hospitalised, without increased hypoglycaemic episodes (17.7% vs. 19.3% patients). In the prospective study, glycaemic control improved from admission to discharge, with control maintained 3 months after discharge. The main treatment modification at discharge compared with admission was addition of basal insulin, and treatment at discharge was maintained at 3 months in 89% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The HOSMIDIA study confirmed that management of hyperglycaemia with basal-bolus insulin is feasible and effective in routine clinical practice, and that a simple strategy facilitating the reconciliation of medication on discharge can improve glycaemic control postdischarge.

Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the need for high-quality, inpatient diabetes care

Elderly patients (aged > 70 years) with diabetes are at high risk of -hospitalization. We provide a detailed commentary about recent international clinical guidelines and a consensus statement devoted to elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the context of hospitalization. In emergency departments, the 4 medication agents associated with the greatest number of patient adverse drug events are warfarin, oral glucose-lowering medications, insulin, and antiplatelet agents, all of which are commonly prescribed in older patients with diabetes. Comprehensive gerontological assessment, including review and, if indicated, discontinuation of all potentially unsafe or inappropriate patient medications should be done upstream to reduce the likelihood of adverse drugs events. Severe infections and ischemic heart disease are also frequent causes of acute admission into hospital in patients aged > 75 years. These patients are also likely to be malnourished and nutritional status should be monitored. Nutritional support, combined with specific products to avoid uncontrolled hyperglycemia must be implemented in patients at risk of malnutrition. Early exercise prescription may help patients maintain physical function and prevent the risk of falling. Clinical guidelines should be applied to achieve safe and effective patient target glucose levels. Insulin should be used earlier for its anabolic properties and patients closely monitored to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and excessive hyperglycemia. The discharge plan needs to address full medical and social needs along with suitable follow-up to ensure a high level of patient safety.