Glargine Insulin Use Versus Continuous Regular Insulin in Diabetic Surgical Noncritically Ill Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition: Randomized Controlled Study

Efficacy and safety of different insulin infusion methods in the treatment of total parenteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Aims

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of different insulin infusion methods in the treatment of total parenteral nutrition (TPN)-associated hyperglycemia based on published literature and the data of completed clinical trials using a network meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases (Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SINOMED) up to December 15, 2022, was performed to collect information on different insulin infusion methods used for the treatment of TPN-associated hyperglycemia, and the Cochrane systematic review method was used to screen the literature, evaluate the quality of the included literature, and extract clinical characteristics for a network meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes included mean blood glucose (MBG), hypoglycemia, hospital length of stay, hyperglycemia, surgical site infection (SSI) and mean total daily insulin.

Results

A total of 21 articles, including 1,459 patients, were included to analyze 6 different routes of insulin infusion, including continuous intravenous insulin infusion (CVII), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), subcutaneous glargine insulin (s.c. GI), the addition of regular insulin to the PN mixture (RI-in-PN), multiple subcutaneous insulin injections (MSII) and 50% of insulin administered as RI-in-PN + 50% of insulin administered as s.c. GI (50% RI-in-PN + 50% s.c. GI). The results of the network meta-analysis showed that MSII was the least effective in terms of MBG, followed by CVII. The 6 interventions were basically equivalent in terms of the hypoglycemia incidence. In terms of the length of hospital stay, patients in the CVII group had the shortest hospital stay, while the MSII group had the longest. CVII was the best intervention in reducing the incidence of hyperglycemia. The incidence of SSI was the lowest in the CSII and CVII groups, and the mean daily insulin dosage was the lowest in the CVII group.

Conclusion

Current literature shows that for the treatment of TPN-associated hyperglycemia, CVII is the most effective, reducing the incidence of hyperglycemia and shortening the length of hospital stay without increasing the incidence of hypoglycemia. MSII has the worst efficacy, leading to a higher MBG and longer hospital stay, and RI-in-PN, CSII, s.c. GI and 50% RI-in-PN + 50% s.c. GI are better in terms of efficacy and safety and can be substituted for each other.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023439290.

Glycemic Management of Hospitalized Patients Receiving Nutrition Support

Enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) increase the risk of hyperglycemia and adverse outcomes, including mortality, in patients with and without diabetes. A blood glucose target range of 140-180 mg/dL is recommended for hospitalized patients receiving artificial nutrition. Using a diabetes-specific EN formula, lowering the dextrose content, and using a hypocaloric PN formula have all been shown to prevent hyperglycemia and associated adverse outcomes. Insulin, given either subcutaneously or as a continuous infusion, is the mainstay of treatment for hyperglycemia. However, no subcutaneous insulin regimen has been shown to be superior to others. This review summarizes the evidence on and provides recommendations for the treatment of EN- and PN-associated hyperglycemia and offers strategies for hypoglycemia prevention. The authors also highlight their institution's protocol for the safe use of insulin in the PN bag. Randomized controlled trials evaluating safety and efficacy of targeted insulin therapy synchronized with different types of EN or PN delivery are needed.

Behavior of Regular Insulin in a Parenteral Nutrition Admixture: Validation of an LC/MS-MS Assay and the In Vitro Evaluation of Insulin Glycation

Parenteral-nutrition (PN)-induced hyperglycemia increases morbidity and mortality and must be treated with insulin. Unfortunately, the addition of insulin to a ternary PN admixture leads to a rapid decrease in insulin content. Our study’s objective was to determine the mechanistic basis of insulin’s disappearance. The literature data suggested the presence of a glycation reaction; we therefore validated an LC-MS/MS assay for insulin and glycated insulin. In a 24-h stability study, 20 IU/L of insulin was added to a binary PN admixture at pH 3.6 or 6.3. When the samples were diluted before analysis with a near-neutral diluent, insulin was fully stable at pH 3.6, while a loss of around 50% was observed at pH 6.3. Its disappearance was shown to be inversely correlated with the appearance of monoglycated insulin (probably a Schiff base adduct). Monoglycated insulin might also undergo a back-reaction to form insulin after acidic dilution. Furthermore, a second monoglycated insulin species appeared in the PN admixture after more than 24 h at high temperature (40 °C) and a high insulin concentration (1000 IU/L). It was stable at acidic pH and might be an Amadori product. The impact of insulin glycation under non-forced conditions on insulin’s bioactivity requires further investigation.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition

Almost half of inpatients on parenteral nutrition experience hyperglycemia, which increases the risk of complications and mortality. The blood glucose target for hospitalized patients on parenteral nutrition is 7.8 to 10.0 mmol/L (140 to 180 mg/dL). For patients with diabetes, the same parenteral nutrition formulae as for patients without diabetes can be used, as long as blood glucose levels can be adequately controlled using insulin. Insulin can be delivered via the subcutaneous or intravenous route or, alternatively, added to parenteral nutrition admixtures. Combining parenteral with enteral and oral nutrition can improve glycemic control in patients with sufficient endogenous insulin stores. Intravenous insulin infusion is the preferred route of insulin delivery in critical care as doses can be rapidly adjusted to altered requirements. For stable patients, insulin can be added directly to the parenteral nutrition bag. If parenteral nutrition is infused continuously over 24 hours, the subcutaneous injection of a long-acting insulin combined with correctional bolus insulin may be adequate. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the management of parenteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia in inpatients with diabetes.

Addition of Regular Insulin to Ternary Parenteral Nutrition: A Stability Study

Background: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a complex medium in which added insulin can become unstable. The aim of this study is, therefore, to evaluate the stability of insulin in PN and to identify influencing factors. Methods: A total of 20 IU/L of regular insulin was added to PN in either glass or Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) containers. A 24 h stability study was performed via an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay in different media: A ternary PN admixture, separate compartments of the PN bag and a binary admixture. This study was repeated in the absence of zinc, with the addition of serum albumin or tween and with pH adjustment (3.6 or 6.3). Insulin concentration at t time was expressed as a percentage of the initial insulin concentration. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied to determine the factors that influence insulin stability. Results: In all PN admixtures, the insulin concentration ratio decreased, stabilising at a 60% and then plateauing after 6 h. At pH 3.6, the ratio was above 90%, while at pH 6.3 it decreased, except in the amino acid solution. ANCOVA (r² = 0.68, p = 0.01) identified dextrose and pH as significant factors influencing insulin stability. Conclusion: A low pH level seems to stabilise insulin in PN admixtures. The influence of dextrose content suggests that insulin glycation may influence stability.

Effect of Adding Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Control in Critically Ill Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the effects of adding a longer-acting insulin glargine to existing glucose control on reducing blood-glucose fluctuations in an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A total of 110 patients randomly received adjuvant insulin glargine 15 IU/day (glargine) or placebo (control), in addition to daily infusion of insulin to maintain glucose levels at a target of 140-180 mg/dL. End points were mean and variance of blood glucose and frequency of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, ICU stay, and mortality. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Average daily glucose level was significantly less in the glargine group than controls (P<0.0001), while there was no difference in daily variance in blood glucose between the two groups. The duration of glucose concentrations being within the target range was identical between the glargine and control groups (16.6±4.9 vs 16.4±4.6 hours/day, P=0.844) during the 7 days of admission. The frequency of hypoglycemia was greater in the glargine group and total duration of hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) much longer among controls (P<0.001). Similar mortality rates were observed in both groups, while ICU length of stay was 2 days shorter in the glargine group.

CONCLUSION

Addition of insulin glargine to routine protocols more effectively reduces glucose levels and decreases incidence of hyperglycemic episodes and regular insulin usage. This adjustment may be associated with decreases in duration of ICU stay or increases in hypoglycemic events.

Management of Glucose Control in Noncritically Ill, Hospitalized Patients Receiving Parenteral and/or Enteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review

Hyperglycemia is a common occurrence in hospitalized patients receiving parenteral and/or enteral nutrition. Although there are several approaches to manage hyperglycemia, there is no consensus on the best practice. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify records (published or registered between April 1999 and April 2019) investigating strategies to manage glucose control in adults receiving parenteral and/or enteral nutrition whilst hospitalized in noncritical care units. A total of 15 completed studies comprising 1170 patients were identified, of which 11 were clinical trials and four observational studies. Diabetes management strategies entailed adaptations of nutritional regimens in four studies, while the remainder assessed different insulin regimens and administration routes. Diabetes-specific nutritional regimens that reduced glycemic excursions, as well as algorithm-driven insulin delivery approaches that allowed for flexible glucose-responsive insulin dosing, were both effective in improving glycemic control. However, the assessed studies were, in general, of limited quality, and we see a clear need for future rigorous studies to establish standards of care for patients with hyperglycemia receiving nutrition support.

Regular insulin added to total parenteral nutrition vs subcutaneous glargine in non-critically ill diabetic inpatients, a multicenter randomized clinical trial: INSUPAR trial

BACKGROUND

There is no established insulin regimen in T2DM patients receiving parenteral nutrition.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness (metabolic control) and safety of two insulin regimens in patients with diabetes receiving TPN.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, multicenter, clinical trial on adult inpatients with type 2 diabetes on a non-critical setting with indication for TPN. Patients were randomized on one of these two regimens: 100% of RI on TPN or 50% of Regular insulin added to TPN bag and 50% subcutaneous GI. Data were analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

81 patients were on RI and 80 on GI. No differences were observed in neither average total daily dose of insulin, programmed or correction, nor in capillary mean blood glucose during TPN infusion (165.3 ± 35.4 in RI vs 172.5 ± 43.6 mg/dL in GI; p = 0.25). Mean capillary glucose was significantly lower in the GI group within two days after TPN interruption (160.3 ± 45.1 in RI vs 141.7 ± 43.8 mg/dL in GI; p = 0.024). The percentage of capillary glucose above 180 mg/dL was similar in both groups. The rate of capillary glucose ≤70 mg/dL, the number of hypoglycemic episodes per 100 days of TPN, and the percentage of patients with non-severe hypoglycemia were significantly higher on GI group. No severe hypoglycemia was detected. No differences were observed in length of stay, infectious complications, or hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness of both regimens was similar. GI group achieved better metabolic control after TPN interruption but non-severe hypoglycemia rate was higher in the GI group.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02706119.

Glycemic Control in Adult Surgical Patients Receiving Regular Insulin Added to Parenteral Nutrition vs Insulin Glargine: A Retrospective Chart Review

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is a frequent complication in patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) and has been associated with an increased risk of mortality. Treatment of hyperglycemia requires insulin therapy; however, the optimal dose and route have not been established. This study aimed to compare regular insulin added to PN (RI-in-PN) with subcutaneous insulin glargine for the management of hyperglycemia in patients receiving PN.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary medical center and reviewed 113 adult, non-critically ill surgical patient admissions receiving PN over a 5-year period. The primary outcome was achievement of glycemic control. Secondary outcomes were time to glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, hospital length of stay, and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

The RI-in-PN group had a significantly higher percentage of patient admissions who achieved glycemic control compared with the insulin glargine group (71.8% vs 48.6%, P = 0.017). There was no difference in time to glycemic control, hypoglycemic events, hospital length of stay, or 1-year mortality between groups. Among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), however, the insulin glargine group had a significantly higher percentage of admissions with at least 1 hypoglycemic event (45.5% vs 20%, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RI-in-PN is recommended over insulin glargine because of the higher likelihood of achieving glycemic control and, in patients with DM, lower risk of hypoglycemic events. Large, randomized controlled trials are needed to further guide prescribing practice.

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.

Differences in Glycemic Control in Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients with Parenteral Nutrition Using a Basal plus Correction Insulin Regimen: An Observational, Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Hyperglycemia is a frequent complication of parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients both with and without diabetes mellitis (DM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of glucose control achieved with basal plus-correction insulin in surgical patients with and without a history of DM receiving PN.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of a protocol applied during the period of January 2013-December 2015. The insulin dose was started at 0.4 and 0.3 IU/kg/day in patients with previous DM and without a history of DM, respectively, and the target blood glucose (BG) was < 180 mg/dl. Mean BG levels, insulin total daily dose (TDD) and hypoglycemic (< 70 mg/dl) events on different days of PN were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients with previous type 2 DM and 39 without DM were evaluated. Glycemic control in both groups was as follows: during the first 48 h (230.4 ± 67 vs. 189.4 ± 38 mg/dl, p = 0.002); at the midpoint (224.6 ± 58 vs. 181.3 ± 27 mg/dl, p = 0.003); 48 h before ending TPN (196.4 ± 43 vs. 169.8 ± 40 mg/dl, p = 0.004). Insulin TDD was 0.5 ± 0.3 U/kg/day in patients with DM and 0.37 ± 0.3 units/kg/day in those without DM (p < 0.05). A total of 18 patients experienced hypoglycemic events, without differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A basal-correction insulin regimen is an alternative method for managing hyperglycemia in non-critically ill surgical patients on PN.

Insulin Regimens to Treat Hyperglycemia in Hospitalized Patients on Nutritional Support: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

The best insulin regimen to treat hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients on nutritional support (NS) is unclear.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases to identify cohort studies or randomized clinical trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of different insulin regimens used to treat hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients on NS on diverse outcomes: mean blood glucose (MBG), hypoglycemia, length of stay in hospital, and mortality.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies from a total of 5,030 were included. Enteral Group included 8 studies; 1,203 patients using rapid, glargine, NPH, or Premix insulin; MBG 108-225 mg/dL; hypoglycemia 0-13%. In indirect meta-analyses, NPH insulin ranked best for glucose control (MD 95% CI -2.50 mg/dL [2.65 to -2.35]). Parenteral Group included 4 studies; 228 patients using regular and glargine or NPH insulin; MBG 137-202 mg/dL; hypoglycemia 0-40%. In meta-analyses comparing regular insulin added to parenteral nutrition bag with glargine, MBG (MD 95% CI -3.78 mg/dL [-11.93 to 4.37]; I2 = 0%) or hypoglycemia frequency (RR 95% CI 1.37 [0.43-4.32]; I2 = 70.7%) did not differ. The description related to hospital length of stay and mortality was inconsistent between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The best insulin regimen to treat hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients on NS has not been established; best results using insulin regimens with NPH in enteral nutrition do not seem to be clinically relevant.

Nutrition and Hyperglycemia Management in the Inpatient Setting (Meals on Demand, Parenteral, or Enteral Nutrition)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to provide the latest evidence and expert recommendations for management of hospitalized patients with diabetes or hyperglycemia receiving enteral (EN), parenteral (PN) nutrition support or, those with unrestricted oral diet, consuming meals on demand.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with and without diabetes mellitus commonly develop hyperglycemia while receiving EN or PN support, placing them at increased risk of adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality. Very little new evidence is available in the form of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to guide the glycemic management of these patients. Reduction in the dextrose concentration within parenteral nutrition as well as selection of an enteral formula that diminishes the carbohydrate exposure to a patient receiving enteral nutrition are common strategies utilized in practice. No specific insulin regimen has been shown to be superior in the management of patients receiving EN or PN nutrition support. For those receiving oral nutrition, new challenges have been introduced with the most recent practice allowing patients to eat meals on demand, leading to extreme variability in carbohydrate exposure and risk of hypo and hyperglycemia. Synchronization of nutrition delivery with the astute use of intravenous or subcutaneous insulin therapy to match the physiologic action of insulin in patients receiving nutritional support should be implemented to improve glycemic control in hospitalized patients. Further RCTs are needed to evaluate glycemic and other clinical outcomes of patients receiving nutritional support. For patients eating meals on demand, development of hospital guidelines and policies are needed, ensuring optimization and coordination of meal insulin delivery in order to facilitate patient safety.

Management of hospitalized type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in hospitalized patients are associated with adverse outcomes including increased rates of infection, longer hospital length of stay, and even death. Clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus proved that by improving glycemic control, we can reduce all of them. Insulin is the preferred treatment for glycemic control in most cases, but alternative treatment options that can normalize blood glucose levels without hypoglycemia are being sought. Moreover, hospitalized patients are particularly vulnerable to severe, prolonged hypoglycemia since they may be unable to sense or respond to the early warning signs and symptoms of low blood glucose. Finally, nutritional support, corticosteroid therapy, and surgery increase the risk of hyperglycemia that leads to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We review the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who are admitted to the general medical wards of the hospital for a procedure of intercurrent illness.