The Association of Diabetes and Hyperglycemia on Inpatient Readmissions

What are the consequences of over and undertreatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a frail population? A systematic review

AIMS

This review aims to identify the evidence base for the consequences of over and undertreatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a frail population.

METHOD

In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for studies from January 2001 to 15th August 2022. We included a variety of study types that assessed and reported frailty including patients ≥18 years old. Studies included those that reported the prevalence of over or undertreatment of diabetes mellitus in a frail population and those examining outcomes related to glucose control in frail older people living with diabetes. Data were extracted using a bespoke extraction table using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

A total of 4114 articles were identified with 112 meeting inclusion criteria. These included 15,130 participants across the 11 studies with sample sizes ranging from 101 to 11,140. Several areas were identified in the included studies where under or overtreatment of diabetes impacted outcomes for patients. These included hospital admissions, readmissions, length of stay, falls, mortality, cognitive impairment and cardiovascular disease outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that there was a high heterogeneity of outcomes between the studies and that many examined small numbers of participants. In this review, both over and undertreatment were shown to increase adverse outcomes in frail older people. Further research around optimal glycaemic control for frail older people living with diabetes is required with the aim to identify ideal target ranges and produce practical clinical guidelines to promote attainment of these.

To What Extent Does Cardiovascular Risk Classification of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Differ between European Guidelines from 2023, 2021, and 2019? A Cross-Sectional Study

Background and Objectives: Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) is intricately associated with an increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, highlighting the imperative for tailored intervention in the prevention and management of CV diseases. To assess the CV risk and subsequent interventions in patients with diabetes, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has been consistently developing and updating specific guidelines for risk assessment and patient management since 2019. The 2023 risk classification method has significantly changed, introducing a novel probability-based assessment through the implementation of SCORE2-Diabetes instrument. This marks a shift from the risk factor-based classification employed in the 2019 and 2021 methods, representing an innovative approach in risk assessment for individuals with T2DM. This study aims to evaluate the differences in the CV risk classification among hospitalized patients with T2DM using the three proposed methods within the Romanian population, a European population considered to be at very high cardiovascular risk. Materials and Methods: in a consecutive-case, population-based study design, 70 patients hospitalized with T2DM from a European population characterized by very high CV risk were assessed for CV risk using the three proposed methods. The differences between these classifications were subsequently analyzed. Results: In the study group, according to 2023 classification, one patient (1.4%) was classified with moderate CV risk, eight (11.4%) with high cardiovascular risk, and sixty-one (87.2%) with very high cardiovascular risk. A total of 36 patients (51.4%) were classified differently compared to 2021 criteria, the differences being statistically significant (p = 0.047), while 13 (18.6%) were different compared to 2019 criteria, the differences being statistically non-significant (p = 0.731). By comparing the 2021 to the 2019 ESC Guidelines recommendations, 40 patients had a one-step decrease in cardiovascular risk category, from very high to high risk. Conclusions: Most patients included in the analysis were classified as very high CV risk (87.2%). Within a European population characterized by very high CV risk, the SCORE2-Diabetes instrument proves to be a valuable tool, contributing to most step-ups in CV risk classes within the 2023 classification. In a very-high-risk demographic, the 2023 algorithm resulted in different classifications in contrast to the 2021 method but similar classifications observed with the 2019 method.

Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in High Risk Hospitalized Non-critically ill Patients with Diabetes after Cardiac Surgery and during their Transition of Care from the Intensive Care Unit during Covid-19-A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated benefits in managing inpatient diabetes. We initiated this single-arm pilot feasibility study during the COVID-19 pandemic in 11 patients to determine the feasibility and accuracy of real-time CGM in cardiac surgery patients with diabetes after their transition of care from the intensive care unit(ICU).

METHODS

Clarke Error Grid(CEG) analysis was used to compare CGM and point-of-care(POC) measurements. Mean absolute relative difference(MARD) of the paired measurements was calculated to assess the accuracy of the CGM for glucose measurements during the first 24 hours on CGM, the remainder of time on the CGM as well as for different chronic kidney disease(CKD) strata.

RESULTS

Overall MARD between POC and CGM measurements was 14.80%. MARD for patients without CKD IV and V with eGFR < 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 12.13%. Overall, 97% of the CGM values were within the no-risk zone of the CEG analysis. For the first 24 hours, a sensitivity analysis of the overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 15.42% (+/- 14.44) and 12.80% (+/- 7.85) respectively. Beyond the first 24 hours, overall MARD for all subjects and for those with eGFR > 20 ml/min/1.73m² was 14.54% (+/- 13.21) and 11.86% (+/- 7.64) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CGM has great promise to optimize inpatient diabetes management in the noncritical care setting and after the transition of care from the ICU with high clinical reliability, and accuracy. More studies are needed to further assess CGM in patients with advanced CKD.