Practical implementation of incretin-based therapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Management of Hyperglycemia in the Noncritical Care Setting: A Real-World Case-Based Approach With Alternative Insulin- and Noninsulin-Based Strategies

Insulin remains the mainstay of treatment for inpatient hyperglycemia in the United States and Canada. However, some other countries commonly use noninsulin agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas, and several trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of incretin-based agents in patients with type 2 diabetes who are admitted to noncritical care medicine and surgery services. There is a high degree of interest in alternative glucose-lowering strategies to achieve favorable glycemic outcomes with lower risks of hypoglycemia. In this case series, we highlight the challenges of inpatient glycemic management and the need for alternatives to the traditional basal-bolus insulin regimen. Additional investigation will be imperative to validate the safety and efficacy of appropriate insulin and noninsulin treatments and to further develop guidelines that are applicable in real-world hospital settings.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Dulaglutide-combined basal plus correction insulin therapy contributes to ideal glycemic control in non-critical hospitalized patients

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated whether dulaglutide (DU)-combined conventional insulin therapy is beneficial for glycemic control in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants were randomized to either basal-plus (BP) therapy, where basal insulin and corrective doses of regular insulin were administered before meals, or BP + DU therapy, where BP therapy was combined with DU. Blood glucose (BG) levels before and after every meal were measured for 7 days after assignment to groups. Because we consider the ideal BG during hospitalization to be within 100-180 mg/dL, we defined this range as the hospitalized ideal glucose range (hIGR). We compared the percentage of BG measurements within the hIGR among all BG measurements (%hIGR), mean BG, glucose variability and insulin dose between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 54 patients, 27 were assigned to the BP group and 27 to the BP + DU group. The %hIGR was significantly higher (44% vs 56%, P < 0.001), and the frequency of BG >240 mg/dL and BG <70 mg/dL was significantly lower in the BP + DU group than in the BP group (both P < 0.001). The mean BG (183 ± 29 vs 162 ± 30 mg/dL, P < 0.05), standard deviation (P < 0.01), coefficient of variation (P < 0.01) and total regular insulin dose (P < 0.05) in the BP + DU group were significantly lower than those in the BP group. No significant side-effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

BP + DU therapy reduced the frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, and resulted in a lower glucose variability.

Debate on Insulin vs Non-insulin Use in the Hospital Setting-Is It Time to Revise the Guidelines for the Management of Inpatient Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperglycemia contributes to a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in the hospital. Professional associations recommend insulin as the mainstay of diabetes therapy in the inpatient setting. The standard of care basal-bolus insulin regimen is a labor-intensive approach associated with a significant risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. This review summarizes recent evidence from observational studies and clinical trials suggesting that not all patients require treatment with complex insulin regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence from clinical trials shows that incretin-based agents are effective in appropriately selected hospitalized patients and may be a safe alternative to complicated insulin regimens. Observational studies also show that older agents (i.e., metformin and sulfonylureas) are commonly used in the hospital, but there are few carefully designed studies addressing their efficacy. Therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, alone or in combination with basal insulin, may effectively control glucose levels in patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. Further studies with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogs and older oral agents are needed to confirm their safety in the hospital.

Retrospective Evaluation of Glycemic Control With Basal-Bolus or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin Regimens in Patients Receiving Continuous Enteral Nutrition Therapy in Medicine Wards

Reasonable glycemic control is difficult to achieve in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving continuous enteral nutrition therapy (CENT). There are no solid evidence-based medicine guidelines regarding this issue in these patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a basal-bolus insulin regimen is more effective than neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin alone in controlling blood glucose in non-critically ill patients with DM receiving CENT. We performed a retrospective, records-based review comparing basal-bolus with NPH insulin regimen in these patients, hospitalized in the internal medicine wards in our hospital. Number of hypoglycemic episodes, mean blood glucose, and time-to-target (time needed to reach 3 successive glucose readings in the appropriate target of 140-180 mg/dL) were evaluated in each regimen. Mean blood glucose was 199.22 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI], 179.8-218.5 mg/dL) in the basal-bolus vs 190.73 mg/dL (95% CI, 172.1-209.2 mg/dL) in the NPH insulin regimen ( P = .538). Time-to-target was an average of 3.65 ± 1.75 days in the basal-bolus group and 4.33 ± 2.42 days in the NPH group ( P = .364). There were no statistically significant differences in frequency of hypoglycemia ( P = .364). Rate of death was high (around 40%) in both groups. We conclude that hospitalized hyperglycemic patients receiving CENT can be treated by either basal-bolus or NPH insulin regimens. However, the overall glucose levels remain elevated during hospitalization irrespective of the insulin therapy. There is an urgent need to define glucose targets in this population of patients and to evaluate prospectively head-to-head different insulin protocols.

Update on Glucose Management Among Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized on Medical and Surgical Wards

Hyperglycemia is a common issue affecting inpatient care. Although this is in part because of the higher rate of hospitalization among patients with preexisting diabetes, multiple factors complicate inpatient glucose management, including acute stress from illness or surgery, erratic dietary intake, and contribution of medications. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that poorly controlled blood glucose levels are associated with negative clinical outcomes, such as increased mortality, higher rate of surgical complications, and longer length of hospital stay. Given these concerns, there has been extensive study of the optimal strategy for management of glucose levels, with the bulk of existing literature focusing on insulin therapy in the intensive care unit setting. This review shifts the focus to the general adult medical and surgical wards, using clinical guidelines and sentinel studies to describe the scientific basis behind the current basal-bolus insulin-based approach to blood sugar management among noncritically ill inpatients. Patient-centered clinical trials looking at alternative dosing regimens and insulin analog and noninsulin agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist therapies, introduce safe and effective options in the management of inpatient hyperglycemia. Data from these studies reveal that these approaches are of comparable safety and efficacy to the traditional basal-bolus insulin regimen, and may offer additional benefit in terms of less monitoring requirements and lower rates of hypoglycemia. Although existing data are encouraging, outcome studies will be needed to better establish the clinical impact of these more recently proposed approaches in an effort to broaden and improve current clinical practices in inpatient diabetes care.

The Time Is Right for a New Classification System for Diabetes: Rationale and Implications of the β-Cell-Centric Classification Schema

The current classification system presents challenges to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), in part due to its conflicting and confounding definitions of type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). The current schema also lacks a foundation that readily incorporates advances in our understanding of the disease and its treatment. For appropriate and coherent therapy, we propose an alternate classification system. The β-cell-centric classification of DM is a new approach that obviates the inherent and unintended confusions of the current system. The β-cell-centric model presupposes that all DM originates from a final common denominator-the abnormal pancreatic β-cell. It recognizes that interactions between genetically predisposed β-cells with a number of factors, including insulin resistance (IR), susceptibility to environmental influences, and immune dysregulation/inflammation, lead to the range of hyperglycemic phenotypes within the spectrum of DM. Individually or in concert, and often self-perpetuating, these factors contribute to β-cell stress, dysfunction, or loss through at least 11 distinct pathways. Available, yet underutilized, treatments provide rational choices for personalized therapies that target the individual mediating pathways of hyperglycemia at work in any given patient, without the risk of drug-related hypoglycemia or weight gain or imposing further burden on the β-cells. This article issues an urgent call for the review of the current DM classification system toward the consensus on a new, more useful system.