A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Glargine U300 and Glargine U100 for the Inpatient Management of Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Glargine U300 Hospital Trial

A comparative evaluation of bioequivalence of Gan & Lee glargine U300 and Toujeo® in Chinese healthy male participants

Background

To assess the bioequivalence between Gan & Lee (GL) glargine U300 and Toujeo® regarding pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety in Chinese healthy male participants.

Methods

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-preparation, two-sequence, four-cycle repeated crossover design study was performed to compare GL glargine U300 and Toujeo® in 40 healthy participants. The primary PK endpoints were the area under the curve of glargine metabolites, M1 concentration from 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24h), and the maximum glargine concentration within 24 hours post-dose (Cmax). The primary PD endpoints were the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve from 0 to 24 hours (AUCGIR.0-24h) and the maximum GIR within 24 hours post-dose (GIRmax).

Results

GL Glargine U300 demonstrated comparable PK parameters (AUC0-24h, Cmax, AUC0-12h, and AUC12-24h of M1) and PD responses [AUCGIR.0-24h, GIRmax, AUCGIR.0-12h, and AUCGIR.12-24h] to those of Toujeo®, as indicated by 90% confidence intervals ranging from 80% to 125%. No significant disparities in safety profiles were observed between the two treatment groups, and there were no reported instances of serious adverse events.

Conclusion

The PK, PD, and safety of GL glargine U300 were bioequivalent to that of Toujeo®.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/, identifier CTR20212419.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

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.

Optimal initial insulin dosage for managing steroid-induced hyperglycemia in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A retrospective single-center study

Objectives

To determine the optimal initial insulin dosage for controlling hyperglycemia in COVID-19 patients receiving steroids, an area with limited data.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 156 COVID-19 patients with steroid-induced hyperglycemia treated with insulin. Patients were categorized by their total daily dose of subcutaneous insulin therapy when starting dexamethasone ⩾6 mg/day or equivalent dose of glucocorticoid: Group A (⩽0.29 units/kg), Group B (0.3-0.49 units/kg), Group C (0.5-0.69 units/kg), and Group B (⩾0.7 units/kg). Treatment failure was defined as mean blood glucose level > 280 mg/dL for two consecutive days after initiating insulin or any blood glucose ⩾ 400 mg/dL.

Results

The mean age was 64 ± 14 years, with 50% male, and a mean body mass index of 26.9 ± 6.9 kg/m2. Most had preexisting type 2 diabetes (62%). Mean admission blood glucose and HbA1c were 233 ± 112 mg/dL and 7.8 ± 2.3%, respectively. Group A had the lowest HbA1c (6.7 ± 1.2%), while group D had the highest (9.8 ± 2.5%). Median daily dexamethasone dosage or equivalent was 36 (IQR 16.72) mg, with no significant differences in among groups. Group A had the lowest treatment failure rate. There were no significant differences in treatment failure rate between Groups B, C, and D. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in mean BG across the groups: Group A 232 ± 42 mg/dL, Group B 247 ± 57 mg/dL, Group C 247 ± 61 mg/dL, and Group D 227 ± 67 mg/dL (p = 0.2). Group D had a significantly higher rate of level 1 hypoglycemia (p = 0.008), while no differences in clinically significant hypoglycemia (level 2 or 3) were observed between groups.

Conclusions

Among patients requiring TDD ⩾ 0.3 units/kg/day, there was no significant difference in treatment failure rate between Groups B, C, and D. Group D had the highest rate of level 1 hypoglycemia. This initial insulin dosage for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on high-dose steroid therapy should be personalized.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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, an interprofessional 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.

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.

Clinical impact after implementing an insulin protocol involving a switch to insulin glargine 300 U/ml as basal insulin for inpatient glycaemic control: A retrospective single-centre study

AIMS

To evaluate the benefit and safety of a switch in the basal insulin protocol to glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) on inpatients' overall dysglycemic events. Efficacy and safety data on insulin Gla-300 in the inpatient setting are limited.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted on 7455 patients admitted to acute care (n = 5414) or geriatric and social healthcare (n = 2041) units of the Regional Hospital of Amposta (Spain) between January 2017 and December 2020 who received basal insulin during hospitalization. Hypo- and hyperglycaemic events were indirectly assessed through hospital pharmacy usage of intravenous glucose and vials of rapid-acting intravenous insulin for 27 months after the switch, and the impact on overall dysglycemic events was analysed.

RESULTS

After protocol implementation, patients were mostly treated with Gla-300 (83.06 % in acute care; and 83.44 % in geriatric and social healthcare), and presented a significant decrease in the use of intravenous insulin (-60.80 %, P = 0.005) and glucose (-62.13 %, P < 0.001), which translated into a significantly reduced overall dysglycemic events (-62.25 %, P < 0.001), with a good safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall inpatient dysglycemic events were improved upon the introduction of the new insulin protocol, which calls for the use of Gla-300 as one of the choices of basal insulin for inpatient care.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

The effects of aging and frailty on inpatient glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Older adults with diabetes in the hospital are generally managed similarly to younger adults, however, it is unknown if the degree of frailty can affect glucose control among hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We examined glycemic parameters derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in older adults with type 2 diabetes and frailty who were hospitalized in non-acute settings. Data was pooled from 3 prospective studies using CGM including 97 patients wearing Libre CGM sensors and 166 patients wearing Dexcom G6 CGM. Glycemic parameters (time in range (TIR) 70-180; time below range (TBR) <70 and 54 mg/dl) by CGM were compared between 103 older adults ≥60 years and 168 younger adults <60 years. Frailty was assessed using validated laboratory and vital signs frailty index FI-LAB (n = 85), and its effect on hypoglycemia risk was studied.

RESULTS

Older adults, as compared to younger adults, had significantly lower admission HbA1c (8.76% ± 1.82 vs. 10.25% ± 2.29, p < 0.001), blood glucose (203.89 ± 88.65 vs. 247.86 ± 124.17 mg/dl, p = 0.003), mean daily BG (173.9 ± 41.3 vs. 183.6 ± 45.0 mg/dl, p = 0.07) and higher percent TIR 70-180 mg/dl (59.0 ± 25.6% vs. 51.0 ± 26.1%, p = 0.02) during hospital stay. There was no difference in hypoglycemia occurrence between older and younger adults. Higher FI-LAB score was associated with higher % CGM < 70 mg/dl (0.204) and % CGM < 54 mg/dl (0.217).

CONCLUSION

Older adults with type 2 diabetes have better glycemic control prior to admission and during hospital stay compared to younger adults. Frailty is associated with longer presence of hypoglycemia in non-acute hospital settings.

Efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A non-inferiority randomized trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of degludec U100 versus glargine U300 for the early postoperative management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A total of 239 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a basal-bolus regimen in the early postoperative period using degludec U100 (n = 122) or glargine U300 (n = 117) as basal and glulisine before meals. The primary outcome was mean differences between groups in their daily BG concentrations. The major safety outcome was the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences in mean daily BG concentrations (157 vs. 162 mg/dl), mean percentage of readings within target BG of 70-180 mg/dl (74% vs. 73%), daily basal insulin dose (19 vs. 21 units/day), length of stay (median [IQR]: 9 vs. 9 days), or hospital complications (21.3% vs. 21.4%) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <70 mg/dl (15.6% vs. 23.1%) or <54 mg/dl (1.6% vs. 4.3%) between degludec-100 and glargine-300 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with degludec U100 is as effective and safe as glargine U300 for the early postoperative hospital management of patients with T2D undergoing CABG.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Rate of Inpatient Hypoglycemia Following a 1:1 Dose Interchange Between Concentrated Insulin Glargine to Insulin Detemir

BACKGROUND

Insulin remains a mainstay of treating hyperglycemia in an acute setting. Insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Toujeo, iGlar300) has a different pharmacokinetic profile than 100 units/mL basal insulins, such as insulin detemir (iDet100) and iGlar100. While conversion from iGlar300 to iGlar100 requires a 20% dose decrease, there is currently no recommended interchange from iGlar300 to iDet100.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients who received a 1:1 unit interchange from home iGlar300 or iGlar100 to iDet100 while admitted.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate adults within a multi-site network admitted between May and December 2019. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of iDet100 following interchange from home iGlar300 or iGlar100. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoglycemic events following a 1:1 interchange of iGlar300 vs. iGlar100 to inpatient iDet100. Secondary outcomes include overall hypoglycemic events, time to hypoglycemia, and doses given before hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Of 615 patients, 394 received a 1:1 unit interchange to iDet100 (52 from iGlar300 and 342 from iGlar100). Incidence of hypoglycemic events was significantly higher in those with a 1:1 interchange from iGlar300 versus iGlar100 (36.5% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.007). Significant differences were observed in overall hypoglycemic events, time to hypoglycemia, and number of doses given before hypoglycemic event.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

A 1:1 unit interchange from iGlar300 to iDet100 led to a higher incidence of hypoglycemic events compared to those interchanged from iGlar100. Dose reduction should be considered when transitioning from home iGlar300 to iDet100 in the inpatient setting.

Changes in glycaemic control of oral anti-diabetic medications assessed by continuous glucose monitors among patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol of network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide comprehensive real-time glucose profile among people with type 2 diabetes. These can accurately detect glucose levels, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia events compared with conventional self-monitoring. Increased application of CGMs provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate glucose control on oral anti-diabetic medications. This review will compare the efficacy and safety of oral anti-diabetic medications among patients with type 2 diabetes, evaluated by CGM.

METHODS

The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature (ClinicalTrials.gov, PsycEXTRA, ProQuest Dissertations, Google Scholar and Theses Global) for the identification of studies. The review will include and summarise evidence from randomised clinical trials that use CGMs for blood glucose management in adults (aged ≥ 18 years), published in English between January 2000 and May 2021 without any restrictions of countries. Reference list of all selected articles will independently be screened to identify additional studies left out in the initial search. Primary outcomes will be HbA1c (≤ 7.0%), time spent with hypoglycaemia (< 70 mg/dl) or hyperglycaemia (≥ 180 mg/dl). Secondary outcomes will be change in weight, blood pressure and related comorbidities (cardiovascular mortality, heart failure events, myocardial infarction and stroke). Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be conducted independently by at least two reviewers. A third reviewer will determine and resolve discrepancies. At least two independent reviewers will cross-check data synthesis. The quality of evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Tool.

DISCUSSION

The review is anticipated to provide up to date evidence for further studies and clinic practices regarding glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, and hyperglycaemia issues. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020188399 .

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine.

CONCLUSION

Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.

Evidence-based therapeutics for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritically ill patients

Hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients, either with or without diabetes, is a common, serious, and costly healthcare problem. Evidence accumulated over 20 years has associated hyperglycemia with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality, both in surgical and medical patients. Based on this documented link between hyperglycemia and poor outcomes, clinical guidelines from professional organizations recommend the treatment of hospital hyperglycemia with a therapeutic goal of maintaining blood glucose (BG) levels less than 180 mg/dL. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of glycemic management in the inpatient setting. The use of non-insulin antidiabetic drugs in the hospital setting is limited because little data are available regarding their safety and efficacy. However, information about the use of incretin-based therapy in inpatients has increased in the past 15 years. This review aims to summarize the different treatment strategies for hyperglycemia in hospitalized noncritical patients that are supported by observational studies or clinical trials with insulin and non-insulin drugs. In addition, we propose a protocol to help with the management of this important clinical problem.

Incretin-based therapy for glycemic control of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Incretin-based therapy leads to glycemic control in a glucose-dependent manner with a low risk of hypoglycemia, making it appealing for use in the hospital. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the benefits of incretin-based therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized outside of the intensive care unit. We searched for studies published up to August 2021 in the PubMed and Scopus databases. Clinical trials comparing incretin-based therapy (alone or in combination with insulin) versus an insulin regimen were selected. The results of the included studies showed that incretin-based therapy showed mean blood glucose values, a percentage of records within the therapeutic target, and a percentage of treatment failure similar to insulin management, particularly in patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. Furthermore, incretin-based treatment was associated with a lower total insulin dose and a lower incidence of hypoglycemia. In conclusion, incretin-based therapy achieved glycemic control similar to insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized outside the intensive care unit and has the advantages of reducing the insulin requirement and a lower risk of hypoglycemia.

Management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia in the hospital

Hyperglycaemia in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital is associated with a substantial increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Professional societies have recommended insulin therapy as the cornerstone of inpatient pharmacological management. Intravenous insulin therapy is the treatment of choice in the critical care setting. In non-intensive care settings, several insulin protocols have been proposed to manage patients with hyperglycaemia; however, meta-analyses comparing different treatment regimens have not clearly endorsed the benefits of any particular strategy. Clinical guidelines recommend stopping oral antidiabetes drugs during hospitalisation; however, in some countries continuation of oral antidiabetes drugs is commonplace in some patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital, and findings from clinical trials have suggested that non-insulin drugs, alone or in combination with basal insulin, can be used to achieve appropriate glycaemic control in selected populations. Advances in diabetes technology are revolutionising day-to-day diabetes care and work is ongoing to implement these technologies (ie, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery) for inpatient care. Additionally, transformations in care have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote inpatient diabetes management-research is needed to assess the effects of such adaptations.

Inpatient Hyperglycemia Management and COVID-19

Diabetes is one of the most common comorbidities in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Inpatient hyperglycemia during this pandemic has been associated with worse outcomes, so it is mandatory to implement effective glycemic control treatment approaches for inpatients with COVID-19. The shortage of personal protective equipment, the need to prevent staff exposure, or the fact that many of the healthcare professionals might be relatively unfamiliar with the management of hyperglycemia may lead to worse glycemic control and, consequently, a worse prognosis. In order to reduce these barriers, we intend to adapt established recommendations to manage hyperglycemia during this pandemic in critical and noncritical care settings.

Considerations for Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Patients During Hospitalization: A Narrative Review of What We Need to Know in the Age of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs

With the availability of second-generation basal insulin analogs, insulin degludec (100 and 200 units/ml [degludec]) and insulin glargine 300 units/ml (glargine U300), clinicians now have long-acting, efficacious treatment options with stable pharmacokinetic profiles and associated low risks of hypoglycemia that may be desirable for many patients with type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence on glycemic control in hospitalized patients and review the pharmacokinetic properties of degludec and glargine U300 in relation to the challenges these may pose during the hospitalization of patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving outpatient regimens involving these newer insulins. Their increased use in clinical practice requires that hospital healthcare professionals (HCPs) have appropriate protocols to transfer patients from these second-generation insulins to formulary insulin on admission, and ensure the safe discharge of patients and transition back to degludec or glargine U300. However, there is no guidance available on this. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we identify key issues to consider when arranging hospital care of such patients. We also summarize the limited available evidence on the potential utility of these second-generation basal insulin analogs in the non-critical inpatient setting and identify avenues for future research. To address current knowledge gaps, it is important that HCPs are educated about the differences between standard formulary insulins and second-generation insulins, and the importance of clear communication during patient transitions.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Implementation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: Emergent Considerations for Remote Glucose Monitoring During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become a widely used tool in the ambulatory setting for monitoring glucose levels, as well as detecting uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability. The accuracy of some CGM systems has recently improved to the point of manufacture with factory calibration and Food and Drug Administration clearance for nonadjunctive use to dose insulin. In this commentary, we analyze the answers to six questions about what is needed to bring CGM into the hospital as a reliable, safe, and effective tool. The evidence to date indicates that CGM offers promise as an effective tool for monitoring hospitalized patients. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 crisis, we hope to provide guidance to healthcare professionals, who are seeking to reduce exposure to SARS-Cov-2, as well as preserve invaluable personal protective equipment. In this commentary, we address who, what, where, when, why, and how CGM can be adopted for inpatient use.