Phase II study of tight glycaemic control in COPD patients with exacerbations admitted to the acute medical unit

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this systematic review was to discuss our current understanding of the complex relationship between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We performed a systematic search of the literature related to both COPD and diabetes using PubMed. Relevant data connecting both diseases were compiled and discussed. Recent evidence suggests that diabetes can worsen the progression and prognosis of COPD; this may result from the direct effects of hyperglycemia on lung physiology, inflammation or susceptibility to bacterial infection. Conversely, it has also been suggested that COPD increases the risk of developing T2DM as a consequence of inflammatory processes and/or therapeutic side effects related to the use of high-dose corticosteroids. In conclusion, although there is evidence to support a connection between COPD and diabetes, additional research is needed to better understand these relationships and their possible implications.

The benefits of tight glycemic control in critical illness: Sweeter than assumed?

Hyperglycemia has long been observed amongst critically ill patients and associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Tight glycemic control (TGC) is the clinical practice of controlling blood glucose (BG) down to the “normal” 4.4–6.1 mmol/L range of a healthy adult, aiming to avoid any potential deleterious effects of hyperglycemia. The ground-breaking Leuven trials reported a mortality benefit of approximately 10% when using this technique, which led many to endorse its benefits. In stark contrast, the multi-center normoglycemia in intensive care evaluation–survival using glucose algorithm regulation (NICE-SUGAR) trial, not only failed to replicate this outcome, but showed TGC appeared to be harmful. This review attempts to re-analyze the current literature and suggests that hope for a benefit from TGC should not be so hastily abandoned. Inconsistencies in study design make a like-for-like comparison of the Leuven and NICE-SUGAR trials challenging. Inadequate measures preventing hypoglycemic events are likely to have contributed to the increased mortality observed in the NICE-SUGAR treatment group. New technologies, including predictive models, are being developed to improve the safety of TGC, primarily by minimizing hypoglycemia. Intensive Care Units which are unequipped in trained staff and monitoring capacity would be unwise to attempt TGC, especially considering its yet undefined benefit and the deleterious nature of hypoglycemia. International recommendations now advise clinicians to ensure critically ill patients maintain a BG of <10 mmol/L. Despite encouraging evidence, currently we can only speculate and remain optimistic that the benefit of TGC in clinical practice is sweeter than assumed.

Hyperglycemia control of the nil per os patient in the intensive care unit: introduction of a simple subcutaneous insulin algorithm

BACKGROUND

Diabetes patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and either nil per os, on enteral feedings, or on total parenteral nutrition are often treated with sliding-scale insulin (despite lack of evidence showing benefit) or intravenous insulin (IVI) infusion, a nursing intensive procedure requiring hourly glucose measurements, and insulin rate adjustments. We introduced a subcutaneous insulin algorithm (SQIA) that would equal the glucose goals for IVI but have the simplicity of q4 hour adjustable sliding-scale insulin.

METHODS

As part of a quality improvement project, we developed a simple SQIA that titrates insulin to the requirements of the individual patient. Glucoses were monitored q4 h and SQ rapid-acting insulin administered based on both the previous insulin dose and current glucose level. Fourteen consecutive hyperglycemic patients admitted to ICU-A were placed on the SQIA. Glucose and insulin data were also obtained on 18 patients in an identical ICU-B who were treated with the usual IVI protocol, which is q1-2 h.

RESULTS

Duration on the SQIA was 4.5 ± 0.6 days (range 0.8-7) and on IVI 1.9 ± 0.6 days (range 0.25-9). Due to difference in length on protocols, only data for the first 3 days could be statistically compared. During this time, the mean ± standard error of glucoses for the SQ and IV groups were 157.3 ± 3.8 and 157.0 ± 2.2 (not significant). No differences were seen in hypoglycemia rates.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple SQIA allows insulin doses to be adjusted to the individual patient's needs and meet current ICU goals for glycemic control. Its adoption may reduce the workload of nurses.