Outcomes of "Real-World" Insulin Strategies in the Management of Hospital Hyperglycemia

Real-world community hospital hyperglycemia management in noncritically ill, type 2 diabetic patients: a comparison between basal-bolus insulin and correctional insulin

Purpose

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of two insulin regimens for inpatient hyperglycemia management: combination short-plus long-acting insulin (basal-bolus insulin regimen, BBIR) vs. short-acting insulin only (correctional insulin only regimen, CIOR).

Methods

Chart reviews identified noncritically ill patients with pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin injections. Study participants (N = 138) were divided into BBIR (N = 104) and CIOR (N = 34) groups. Data for the entire duration of each patient's stay were analyzed.

Results

The primary outcome of percent hyperglycemic days was higher in BBIR vs. CIOR (3.97 ± 0.33% vs. 1.22 ± 0.38%). The safety outcome of percent hypoglycemic events was not different between BBIR and CIOR (0.78 ± 0.22% vs. 0.53 ± 0.37%). Regarding secondary outcomes, the percentage of euglycemic days was lower in BBIR vs. CIOR (26.74 ± 2.97% vs. 40.98 ± 5.91%). Overall blood glucose (BG) and daily insulin dose were higher in BBIR vs. CIOR (231.43 ± 5.37 vs. 195.55 ± 6.25 mg/dL and 41.36 ± 3.07 vs. 5.02 ± 0.68 units, respectively). Insulin regimen-associated differences in hyperglycemia and daily insulin dose persisted after adjusting for covariates.

Conclusion

Our observations linking BBIR to worse glycemic outcomes differ from those reported in the randomized controlled Rabbit 2 and Rabbit 2 Surgery trials. This discrepancy can be partly explained by the fact that BBIR patients displayed worse glycemic baselines. Also, there was no diabetes stewardship team to monitor BG and modify insulin therapy, which is relevant since achieving euglycemia in BBIR patients requires more dose adjustments. This study highlights challenges with standard inpatient glycemic management and calls for further research assessing the benefits of pharmacist-led diabetes stewardship.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with basal-plus insulin regimen versus insulin alone in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: SITA-PLUS hospital trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal-plus (BP) insulin regimen with or without sitagliptin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This open-label, randomized clinical trial included inpatients with a previous diagnosis of T2D and blood glucose (BG) between 180 and 400 mg/dL. Participants received basal and correctional insulin doses (BP regimen) either with or without sitagliptin. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean daily BG among the groups.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients (mean age 60 years, 64 % men) were randomized. Compared with BP insulin therapy alone, the sitagliptin-BP combination led to a lower mean daily BG (158.8 vs 175.0 mg/dL, P = 0.014), a higher percentage of readings within a BG range of 70-180 mg/dL (75.9 % vs 64.7 %, P < 0.001), and a lower number of BG readings >180 mg/dL (P < 0.001). Sitagliptin-BP resulted in fewer basal and supplementary insulin doses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.017, respectively) and lower daily insulin injections (P = 0.023) than those with insulin alone. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For inpatients with T2D and hyperglycemia, the sitagliptin and BP regimen combination is safe and more effective than insulin therapy alone.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT05579119.

Efficacy and safety of basal-bolus insulin at 1:1.5 ratio compared to 1:1 ratio using a weight-based initiation and titration (WIT2) algorithm in hospitalized patients with type 2 Diabetes: a multicenter, randomized, clinical study

BACKGROUND

Most studies initiated basal-bolus insulin in a ratio of 1:1 and titrated based on glucose. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a weight-based and ratio of 1:1.5 basal-bolus insulin using an algorithm for both initiation and titration in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with T2D were randomly assigned to two groups in equal numbers to receive 1:1.5 and 1:1 ratios of basal-bolus insulin using a weight-based algorithm for both initiation and titration. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach the fasting blood glucose (FBG) target and 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hBG) targets after three meals. The secondary outcome included insulin dosage to achieve glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia during hospitalization.

RESULTS

250 patients were screened between October 2021 and June 2022, 220 were randomly grouped, and 182 completed the trial (89 in the 1:1.5 and 93 in the 1:1 groups). The time taken to reach FBG targets was comparable between the two groups (3.4 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.137) within about 3 days. The 2hBG after three meals was shorter in the 1:1.5 group than in the 1:1group (2.9 ± 1.5 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.015 for breakfast, 3.0 ± 1.6 vs. 3.6 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.005 for lunch, and 3.1 ± 2.1 vs. 4.0 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.002 for dinner). No significant difference in insulin dosages was found between the two groups at the end of the study. The incidence of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that fixed dose-ratio basal-bolus insulin at 1:1.5 calculated using a weight-based initiation and titration algorithm was simple, as effective, and safe as ratio at 1:1 in managing T2D in hospitalized patients. Trial Registration ChiCTR 2,100,050,963. Date of registration: September 8, 2021.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

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.

InsulinAPP application protocol for the inpatient management of type 2 diabetes on a hospitalist-managed ward: a retrospective study

Introduction

We assessed metrics related to inpatient glycemic control using InsulinAPP, an application available for free in Brazil, on the hospitalist-managed ward of our hospital.

Subjects and methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) admitted from November 2018 to October 2019. InsulinAPP recommends NPH and regular insulins three times a day, in bolus-correction or basal-bolus schemes. Parameters that included BG within range of 70-180 mg/dL, insulin treatment regimen and frequency of hypoglycemia were evaluated.

Results

A total of 147 T2D individuals (23% medicine and 77% surgery) were included (mean age 62.3 ± 12.7 years, HbA1c: 8.3 ± 3.0%). The initial insulin regimen was 50% bolus-correction, 47% basal-bolus and 3% with sliding scale insulin. During hospitalization, 71% patients required a bolus-basal regimen. In the first 10 days of the protocol, 71% BG measurements were between 70-180 mg/dL and 26% patients experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia < 70 mg/dL, and 5% with BG < 54 mg/dL.

Conclusion

The results of this retrospective study indicate the InsulinAPP application using human insulin formulations was effective and safe for the management of hyperglycemia on a hospitalist-managed ward, with more than 70% BG measurements within the therapeutic range and a low rate of hypoglycemia.

Safety and Efficacy of Inpatient Diabetes Management with Non-insulin Agents: an Overview of International Practices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of inpatient diabetes has advanced significantly over the last 20 years, leading to the development of personalized treatment approaches. However, outdated guidelines still recommend the use of basal-bolus insulin therapy as the preferred treatment approach, and against the use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several observational and prospective randomized controlled studies have demonstrated that oral anti-hyperglycemic agents are widely used in the hospital, including studies of DPP-4 agents and GLP-1 agonists. With advances in the field of inpatient diabetes management, a paradigm shift has occurred, from an approach of recommending "basal-bolus regimens" for all patients to a more precision medicine option for hospitalized non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes.

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients of a tertiary care hospital: prevalence and treatment in two cross-sectional evaluations (2011-2020)

Objective

A study at Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto in 2011 revealed suboptimal control of inpatient hyperglycemia and a similar one was carried out in 2020. This study compares the results of 2011 and 2020 regarding prevalence of hyperglycemia, metabolic control, treatment and glycemic profile by infection/non-infection diagnosis.

Methods

We performed two cross-sectional studies on 13^th December 2011 and 9^th October 2020 that included all non-critical adults with at least 24 hours of hospitalization, with no specific intervention between them. Glycemic control evaluated by minimum and maximum capillary blood glucose (CBG) in the previous day categorized as hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL), normoglycemia (70-179 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (≥180 mg/dL) (SPSS v.20).

Results

A total of 418 and 445 patients were respectively included in 2011 and 2020 studies and the prevalence of hyperglycemia was similar. Glycemic control improved numerically although not significantly in 2020: increase in normoglycemia, reduction in hyperglycemia and reduction in hypoglycemia. There was an increase in the use of basal-bolus regimens (19.6% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.009) and a decrease in human basal (p < 0.01) and rapid-acting insulin use (p = 0.001) with a proportional increase in long-acting (p = 0.002) and rapid-acting analogs (p < 0.001) use. There was a higher prevalence of infection (39.8% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.006) in 2020 and, in the infection subgroup, there were higher insulinization rates (37.3% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.017) and a trend to glycemic control improvement.

Conclusion

Despite the higher insulinization rates, the preference for new insulin analogs and a trend to better glycemic control, we have not yet reached targets, so education still remains necessary.