Incretins and the intensivist: what are they and what does an intensivist need to know about them?

Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill

Hyperglycemia is common in the intensive care unit (ICU) both in patients with and without a previous diagnosis of diabetes. The optimal glucose range in the ICU population is still a matter of debate. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with intensive insulin therapy, current recommendations include treating hyperglycemia after two consecutive glucose >180 mg/dL with target levels of 140-180 mg/dL for most patients. The optimal method of sampling glucose and delivery of insulin in critically ill patients remains elusive. While point of care glucose meters are not consistently accurate and have to be used with caution, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is not standard of care, nor is it generally recommended for inpatient use. Intravenous insulin therapy using paper or electronic protocols remains the preferred approach for critically ill patients. The advent of new technologies, such as electronic glucose management, CGM, and closed-loop systems, promises to improve inpatient glycemic control in the critically ill with lower rates of hypoglycemia.

Incident Diabetes in Survivors of Critical Illness and Mechanisms Underlying Persistent Glucose Intolerance: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Stress hyperglycemia occurs in critically ill patients and may be a risk factor for subsequent diabetes. The aims of this study were to determine incident diabetes and prevalent prediabetes in survivors of critical illness experiencing stress hyperglycemia and to explore underlying mechanisms.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, single center, cohort study. At admission to ICU, hemoglobin A1c was measured in eligible patients. Participants returned at 3 and 12 months after ICU admission and underwent hemoglobin A1c testing and an oral glucose tolerance test. Blood was also collected for hormone concentrations, whereas gastric emptying was measured via an isotope breath test. β-cell function was modeled using standard techniques.

SETTING

Tertiary-referral, mixed medical-surgical ICU.

PATIENTS

Consecutively admitted patients who developed stress hyperglycemia and survived to hospital discharge were eligible.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Consent was obtained from 40 patients (mean age, 58 yr [SD, 10], hemoglobin A1c 36.8 mmol/mol [4.9 mmol/mol]) with 35 attending the 3-month and 26 the 12-month visits. At 3 months, 13 (37%) had diabetes and 15 (43%) had prediabetes. At 12 months, seven (27%) participants had diabetes, whereas 11 (42%) had prediabetes. Mean hemoglobin A1c increased from baseline during the study: +0.7 mmol/mol (-1.2 to 2.5 mmol/mol) at 3 months and +3.3 mmol/mol (0.98-5.59 mmol/mol) at 12 months (p = 0.02). Gastric emptying was not significantly different across groups at either 3 or 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes and prediabetes occur frequently in survivors of ICU experiencing stress hyperglycemia. Based on the occurrence rate observed in this cohort, structured screening and intervention programs appear warranted.

Systematic review of incretin therapy during peri-operative and intensive care

Background

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) are incretin hormones. By lowering blood glucose in a glucose-dependent manner, incretin-based therapies represent a novel and promising intervention to treat hyperglycaemia in hospital settings. We performed a systematic review of the literature for all current applications of incretin-based therapies in the peri-operative and critical care settings.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for all randomised controlled trials using exogenous GLP-1, GLP-1 receptor agonists, exogenous GIP and dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors in the setting of adult peri-operative care or intensive care. We defined no comparator treatment. Outcomes of interest included blood glucose, frequency of hypoglycaemia and insulin administration.

Results

Of the 1190 articles identified during the initial literature search, 38 fulfilled criteria for full-text review, and 19 single-centre studies were subsequently included in the qualitative review. Of the 18 studies reporting glycaemic control, improvement was reported in 15, defined as lower glucose concentrations in 12 and as reduced insulin administration (with similar glucose concentrations) in 3. Owing to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was possible only for the outcome of hypoglycaemia. This revealed an incidence of 7.4% in those receiving incretin-based therapies and 6.8% in comparator groups (P = 0.94).

Conclusions

In small, single-centre studies, incretin-based therapies lowered blood glucose and reduced insulin administration without increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42017071926.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2197-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Optimal glycaemic targets in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive with conventional glycaemic control in TBI requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2016. Outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, poor neurological outcome, the incidence of hypoglycaemia and infective complications. Data were analysed by pairwise random effects models with secondary analysis of differing levels of conventional glycaemic control.

Results

Ten RCTs, involving 1066 TBI patients were included. Three studies were conducted exclusively in a TBI population, whereas in seven trials, the TBI population was a sub-cohort of a mixed neurocritical or general ICU population. Glycaemic targets with intensive control ranged from 4.4 to 6.7 mmol/L, while conventional targets aimed to keep glucose levels below thresholds of 8.4–12 mmol/L. Conventional versus intensive control showed no association with ICU or hospital mortality (relative risk (RR) (95% CI) 0.93 (0.68–1.27), P = 0.64 and 1.07 (0.84–1.36), P = 0.62, respectively). The risk of a poor neurological outcome was higher with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 1.10 (1.001–1.24), P = 0.047). However, severe hypoglycaemia occurred less frequently with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 0.22 (0.09–0.52), P = 0.001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis of intensive glycaemic control shows no association with reduced mortality in TBI. Intensive glucose control showed a borderline significant reduction in the risk of poor neurological outcome, but markedly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. These contradictory findings should motivate further research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.