Continuous infusion of subcutaneous compared to intravenous insulin for tight glycaemic control in medical intensive care unit patients

Continuous Insulin Therapy to Prevent Post-Transplant Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Rationale & Objectives

Hyperglycemia is frequently observed early after transplantation and associated with development of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM). Here, we assessed continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) targeting afternoon hyperglycemia.

Study Design

Open-label randomized parallel 3-arm design.

Settings & Participants

In total, 85 kidney transplant recipients without previous diabetes diagnosis were randomized to postoperative CSII therapy, basal insulin, or control.

Interventions

Insulin was to be initiated at afternoon capillary blood glucose level of ≥140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L; CSII and basal insulin) or fasting plasma glucose level of ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L; control).

Outcomes

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels at 3 months post-transplant (primary endpoint). PTDM assessed using oral glucose tolerance test at 12 and 24 months.

Results

CSII therapy lasted until median day 18 and maximum day 88. The median HbA1c value at month 3 was 5.6% (38 mmol/mol) in the CSII group versus 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) in the control group (P = 0.70) and 5.4% (36 mmol/mol) in the basal insulin group (P = 0.02). At months 12 and 24, the odds for PTDM were similar compared with the control group (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals], 0.80 [0.18-3.49] and 0.71 [0.15-3.16], respectively) and the basal insulin group (0.96 [0.18-5.68] and 1.51 [0.24-12.84], respectively). Mild hypoglycemia events occurred in the CSII and the basal insulin groups.

Limitations

This study is limited by outdated insulin pump technology, frequent discontinuations of CSII, a complex protocol, and concerns regarding reliability of HbA1c measurements.

Conclusions

CSII therapy was not superior at reducing HbA1c levels at month 3 or PTDM prevalence at months 12 and 24 compared with the control or basal insulin group.

Insulin resistance assessed by short insulin tolerance test and its association with obesity and insulin resistance-related parameters in humans: A pilot randomized trial

The aim of this study was to examine the association of insulin resistance (evaluated by the short insulin tolerance test [SITT]) with parameters related to obesity and insulin resistance. We prospectively recruited controls and patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), subjected them to the SITT, and calculated the K indices of the intravenous insulin tolerance test (KITT(iv)) and the subcutaneous insulin tolerance test (KITT(sc)). We compared KITT(iv) results between the volunteers and patients and examined its correlation with KITT(sc). We also examined the association of KITT(iv) with obesity, insulin resistance-related parameters, and the insulin dose required for glycemic control. A total of 24 participants (seven controls and 17 patients with T2DM) were studied. The mean KITT(iv) was significantly lower in patients with T2DM than in the controls (2.5%±2.1% vs. 4.5%±1.8%). In all participants, KITT(iv) was significantly correlated with the homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) values (r = -0.601, p<0.05) but not with KITT(sc) (p = 0.62). KITT(iv) was correlated positively with the serum adiponectin concentration, but negatively with the visceral fat area and serum concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-α and branched-chain amino acids. In patients with T2DM, KITT(iv) and HOMA-IR values were significantly correlated with the total insulin dose required for glycemic control. Insulin resistance evaluated using KITT(iv) was correlated with the HOMA-IR values, but not with the resistance evaluated using KITT(sc). The degree of insulin resistance was associated with biomarkers, such as adiponectin, tumor necrosis factor-α, branched-chain amino acids, the visceral fat area, and the dose of insulin required for glycemic control.

Consensus Statement on Use of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy in the Hospital

In May 2017, the Diabetes Technology Society convened a panel of US experts on inpatient diabetes management to discuss the current and potential role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy in the hospital. The panel (1) discussed evidence for current use of CSII in the hospital, (2) recommended contraindications for use in the hospital, and (3) recommended guidelines to maximize chances for safe use of CSII in the hospital. Panel members agreed that larger, prospective, randomized studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy of CSII use in the hospital. As CSII technology becomes more complex and its use increases, it is imperative that institutional protocols be in place to ensure safe use of this technology and safe transitions across care areas. Providers need to be cognizant that not all patients currently using CSII as an outpatient are appropriate candidates for continued use in the hospital. This consensus statement provides guidelines for practitioners who may encounter patients using this technology in the inpatient setting.

Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are commonly used by patients with diabetes mellitus in the outpatient setting. The efficacy and safety of initiating inpatient insulin pumps and CGM in the nonintensive care unit setting is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, inpatients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive standard subcutaneous basal-bolus insulin and blinded CGM (group 1, n = 5), insulin pump and blinded CGM (group 2, n = 6), or insulin pump and nonblinded CGM (group 3, n = 5). Feasibility, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction were evaluated among groups.

RESULTS

Group 1 had lower mean capillary glucose levels, 144.5 ± 19.5 mg/dL, compared with groups 2 and 3, 191.5 ± 52.3 and 182.7 ± 59.9 mg/dL (P1 vs. 2+3 = 0.05). CGM detected 19 hypoglycemic episodes (glucose <70 mg/dL) among all treatment groups, compared with 12 episodes detected by capillary testing, although not statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the total daily dose of insulin or percentage of time spent below target glucose range (<90 mg/dL), in target glucose range (90-180 mg/dL), or above target glucose range (>180 mg/dL). On the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-Change, group 3 reported increased hyperglycemia and decreased hypoglycemia frequency compared with the other two groups, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump and CGM initiation are feasible during hospitalization, although they are labor intensive. Although insulin pump initiation may not lead to improved glycemic control, there is a trend toward CGM detecting a greater number of hypoglycemic episodes. Larger studies are needed to determine whether use of this technology can lower inpatient morbidity and mortality.

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

Transitioning insulin pump therapy from the outpatient to the inpatient setting: a review of 6 years' experience with 253 cases

BACKGROUND

We reviewed the care of a large cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus on insulin pump therapy who required an inpatient stay.

METHODS

Records were reviewed of patients hospitalized between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients using insulin pumps had 253 hospitalizations. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 55 (16) years, diabetes duration was 29 (15) years, and pump duration was 6 (5) years. Insulin pump therapy was continued in 164 (65%) hospitalizations. Adherence to core process measures improved over time: by 2011, 100% of cases had an endocrinology consultation, 100% had the required insulin pump order set completed, and 94% had documentation of the signed agreement specifying patient responsibilities for continued use of the technology while hospitalized. Documentation of the insulin pump flow sheet also increased but could still be located in only 64% of cases by the end of 2011. Mean glucose was not significantly different among patients who remained on insulin pump therapy compared to those for whom it was discontinued (p > .1), but episodes of severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dl) and hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) were significantly less common among pump users. No pump site infections, mechanical pump failures, or episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed among patients remaining on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate patient selection and usage guidelines, most patients using insulin pumps can safely have their therapy transitioned to the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to determine whether this approach can be translated to other hospital settings.