Management of hyperglycemia with the administration of intravenous exenatide to patients in the cardiac intensive care unit

Diabetes Mellitus in Acute Coronary Syndrome

The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has led to a pandemic, with significant microvascular and macrovascular complications including coronary artery disease (CAD), which worsen clinical outcomes and cardiovascular prognosis. Patients with both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and DM have worse prognosis and several pathophysiologic mechanisms have been implicated including, insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation and aggregations as well as plaque characteristics and extent of coronary lesions. Therefore, regarding reperfusion strategies in the more complex anatomies coronary artery bypass surgery may be the preferred therapeutic strategy over percutaneous coronary intervention while both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia should be avoided with closed monitoring of glycemic status during the acute phase of myocardial infraction. However, the best treatment strategy remains undefined. Non-insulin therapies, due to the low risk of hypoglycemia concurrently with the multifactorial CV protective effects, may be proved to be the best treatment option in the future. Nevertheless, evidence for the beneficial effects of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors and sodium glycose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, despite accumulating, is not robust and future randomized control trials may provide more definitive data.

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.

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.

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.

Glycemic Control in Hospitalized Stroke Patients: A Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss clinical trials involving glycemic control in hospitalized stroke patients and to review oral medications used in glycemic control. GLP-1 agonists, which have some preliminary studies in ischemic stroke, will also be reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until recently, glycemic control targets in hospitalized stroke patients remained unclear. The SHINE (Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort) trial demonstrated no significant difference between aggressive versus standard of care glycemic control in the acute ischemic stroke patient. Although SHINE demonstrated a lack of statistical difference in glycemic control targets, many questions remain including glycemic control in patients with other stroke types (SAH, ICH). The role of non-insulin-based medications in glycemic control for hospitalized stroke patients remains unclear and presents an opportunity for further research. Finally, GLP-1 agonists present an interesting area of research for acute ischemic stroke.

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.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Insight Into the Perioperative Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetic people are at risk of developing acute complications when exposed to stress. Surgery brings a stressful period when the patient is exposed not only to surgical stress but also the effects of medications used during that particular period. The patient's comorbidities can influence the perioperative management of diabetes. Poorly controlled diabetes can complicate the hospital course. The literature was searched through PubMed and the articles of the last 5 years, from 2014 to 2019, were looked into. The studies available as a free text, in the English language and related to humans, were included. Inclusion criteria also included adults with type 2 diabetes undergoing surgery. The perioperative management of diabetes is a challenging one. Apart from the diabetes control; comorbidities, general health, intake, and interaction of medications both anti-diabetic and non-diabetic, type and duration of surgery, are some of the factors that influence the outcome of the surgery. With a variety of options available to manage diabetes currently, it is important to have a good insight into their effects to prevent complications to occur and ensure safe discharge from the hospital. The good control of diabetes is essential in bringing favorable outcomes. The perioperative management of diabetes should be individualized. Oral anti-hyperglycemic medications, other than sulfonylureas and SGLT2 inhibitors, provide a reasonable alternative to insulin and can be continued safely perioperatively depending upon the type of surgery and the patient is expected to resume oral intake soon postoperatively.

Dulaglutide-combined basal plus correction insulin therapy contributes to ideal glycemic control in non-critical hospitalized patients

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated whether dulaglutide (DU)-combined conventional insulin therapy is beneficial for glycemic control in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants were randomized to either basal-plus (BP) therapy, where basal insulin and corrective doses of regular insulin were administered before meals, or BP + DU therapy, where BP therapy was combined with DU. Blood glucose (BG) levels before and after every meal were measured for 7 days after assignment to groups. Because we consider the ideal BG during hospitalization to be within 100-180 mg/dL, we defined this range as the hospitalized ideal glucose range (hIGR). We compared the percentage of BG measurements within the hIGR among all BG measurements (%hIGR), mean BG, glucose variability and insulin dose between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 54 patients, 27 were assigned to the BP group and 27 to the BP + DU group. The %hIGR was significantly higher (44% vs 56%, P < 0.001), and the frequency of BG >240 mg/dL and BG <70 mg/dL was significantly lower in the BP + DU group than in the BP group (both P < 0.001). The mean BG (183 ± 29 vs 162 ± 30 mg/dL, P < 0.05), standard deviation (P < 0.01), coefficient of variation (P < 0.01) and total regular insulin dose (P < 0.05) in the BP + DU group were significantly lower than those in the BP group. No significant side-effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

BP + DU therapy reduced the frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, and resulted in a lower glucose variability.

Therapeutic Effects of Endogenous Incretin Hormones and Exogenous Incretin-Based Medications in Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis, a complex disorder characterized by a dysregulated immune response to an inciting infection, affects over one million Americans annually. Dysglycemia during sepsis hospitalization confers increased risk of organ dysfunction and death, and novel targets for the treatment of sepsis and maintenance of glucose homeostasis are needed. Incretin hormones are secreted by enteroendocrine cells in response to enteral nutrients and potentiate insulin release from pancreatic β cells in a glucose-dependent manner, thereby reducing the risk of insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Incretin hormones also reduce systemic inflammation in preclinical studies, but studies of incretins in the setting of sepsis are limited.

METHODS

In this bench-to-bedside mini-review, we detail the evidence to support incretin hormones as a therapeutic target in patients with sepsis. We performed a PubMed search using the medical subject headings "incretins," "glucagon-like peptide-1," "gastric inhibitory peptide," "inflammation," and "sepsis."

RESULTS

Incretin-based therapies decrease immune cell activation, inhibit proinflammatory cytokine release, and reduce organ dysfunction and mortality in preclinical models of sepsis. Several small clinical trials in critically ill patients have suggested potential benefit in glycemic control using exogenous incretin infusions, but these studies had limited power and were performed in mixed populations. Further clinical studies examining incretins specifically in septic populations are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting the incretin hormone axis in sepsis may provide a means of not only promoting euglycemia in sepsis but also attenuating the proinflammatory response and improving clinical outcomes.

The use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in hospitalised patients: An untapped potential

In the outpatient setting, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have proved to be highly efficacious drugs that provide glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia. These characteristics make GLP-1 receptor agonists attractive agents to treat dysglycaemia in perioperative or high-dependency hospital settings, where glycaemic variability and hyperglycaemia are associated with poor prognosis. GLP-1 also has a direct action on the myocardium and vasculature-which may be advantageous in the immediate aftermath of a vascular insult. This is a narrative review of the work in this area. The aim was to determine the populations of hospitalised patients being evaluated and the clinical and mechanistic end-points tested, with the institution of GLP-1 therapy in hospital. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Google scholar databases, combining the term "glucagon-like peptide 1" OR "GLP-1" OR "incretin" OR "liraglutide" OR "exenatide" OR "lixisenatide" OR "dulaglutide" OR "albiglutide" AND "inpatient" OR "hospital" OR "perioperative" OR "postoperative" OR "surgery" OR "myocardial infarction" OR "stroke" OR "cerebrovascular disease" OR "transient ischaemic attack" OR "ICU" OR "critical care" OR "critical illness" OR "CCU" OR "coronary care unit." Pilot studies were reported in the fields of acute stroke, cardiac resuscitation, coronary care, and perioperative care that showed advantages for GLP-1 therapy, with normalisation of glucose, lower glucose variability, and lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Animal and human studies have reported improvements in myocardial performance when given acutely after vascular insult or surgery, but these have yet to be translated into randomised clinical trials.

Debate on Insulin vs Non-insulin Use in the Hospital Setting-Is It Time to Revise the Guidelines for the Management of Inpatient Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperglycemia contributes to a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in the hospital. Professional associations recommend insulin as the mainstay of diabetes therapy in the inpatient setting. The standard of care basal-bolus insulin regimen is a labor-intensive approach associated with a significant risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. This review summarizes recent evidence from observational studies and clinical trials suggesting that not all patients require treatment with complex insulin regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence from clinical trials shows that incretin-based agents are effective in appropriately selected hospitalized patients and may be a safe alternative to complicated insulin regimens. Observational studies also show that older agents (i.e., metformin and sulfonylureas) are commonly used in the hospital, but there are few carefully designed studies addressing their efficacy. Therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, alone or in combination with basal insulin, may effectively control glucose levels in patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. Further studies with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogs and older oral agents are needed to confirm their safety in the hospital.

Noninsulin medication therapy for hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

Published evidence regarding the role of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies in glycemic management of hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus is reviewed.

SUMMARY

The American Diabetes Association recommends against the routine use of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies during hospitalization and supports insulin use instead. There are significant risks associated with insulin therapy, including hypoglycemia, and use of alternative therapies may be considered in hospitalized patients. A MEDLINE literature search was conducted to find articles on studies evaluating the use of noninsulin antidiabetic therapies in the inpatient setting; all full-text English-language publications presenting observational and randomized clinical trial data on the topic of interest were considered for inclusion in the review, with 9 publications selected for review. The majority of the reviewed research focused on incretin-based therapies, and favorable safety and efficacy outcomes were reported with the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The available evidence indicates that the use of other noninsulin medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulfonylureas, to achieve and maintain glycemic control in the inpatient setting may be limited by adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Optimal glycemic control in hospitalized patients with diabetes is necessary to avoid adverse effects. Insulin therapy is currently the primary medication recommended for this patient population. DPP-4 inhibitors have been demonstrated to be safe and effective for use in the inpatient setting in patients with well-controlled diabetes. Further research is needed to help define the role of noninsulin medications in the inpatient setting.

Recent advances in diabetes treatments and their perioperative implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The implications for perioperative management of new oral antihyperglycemic medications and new insulin treatment technologies are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The preoperative period represents an opportunity to optimize glycemic control and potentially to reduce adverse outcomes. There is now general consensus that the optimal blood glucose target for hospitalized patients is approximately 106-180 mg/dl (6-10 mmol/l). Recommendations for the management of antihyperglycemic medications vary among national guidelines. It may not be necessary to cease all antihyperglycemic agents prior to surgery. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are associated with higher rates of ketoacidosis especially in acutely unwell and postsurgical patients. The clinical practice implications of new insulin formulations, and new systems for insulin delivery, are not clear. The optimal perioperative management of these will vary depending on local institutional factors such as staff skills and existing clinical practices. Improved hospital care delivery standards, quality assurance, process improvements, consistency in clinical practice, and coordinated multidisciplinary teamwork should be a major focus for improving outcomes of perioperative patients with diabetes.

SUMMARY

Sulfonylureas and SGLT2i should be ceased before moderate or major surgery. Other oral antihyperglycemic therapies may be continued or ceased. Complex patients and/or new therapies require specialized multidisciplinary management.

Use of incretin-based therapy in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia

OBJECTIVE

Hyperglycemia is common in hospitalized patients with and without prior history of diabetes and is an independent marker of morbidity and mortality in critically and noncritically ill patients. Tight glycemic control using insulin has been shown to reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients, but it also results in hypoglycemic episodes, which have been linked to poor outcomes. Thus, alternative treatment options that can normalize blood glucose levels without undue hypoglycemia are being sought. Incretin-based therapies, such as glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, may have this potential.

METHODS

A PubMed database was searched to find literature describing the use of incretins in hospital settings. Title searches included the terms "diabetes" (care, management, treatment), "hospital," "inpatient," "hypoglycemia," "hyperglycemia," "glycemic," "incretin," "dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor," "glucagon-like peptide-1," and "glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist."

RESULTS

The preliminary research experience with native GLP-1 therapy has shown promise, achieving improved glycemic control with a low risk of hypoglycemia, counteracting the hyperglycemic effects of stress hormones, and improving cardiac function in patients with heart failure and acute ischemia. Large, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to determine whether these favorable results will extend to the use of GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

This review offers hospitalist physicians and healthcare providers involved in inpatient diabetes care a pathophysiologic-based approach for the use of incretin agents in patients with hyperglycemia and diabetes, as well as a summary of benefits and concerns of insulin and incretin-based therapy in the hospital setting.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of Exenatide Therapy for the Inpatient Management of General Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial examined the safety and efficacy of exenatide alone or in combination with basal insulin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 150 patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated at home with diet, oral agents, or insulin at a total daily dose <0.5 units/kg, were randomized to exenatide alone (5 μg twice daily), exenatide plus basal insulin, or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. The primary end point was difference in mean daily BG concentration among groups.

RESULTS

Mean daily BG was similar between patients treated with exenatide plus basal and a basal-bolus regimen (154 ± 39 vs. 166 ± 40 mg/dL, P = 0.31), and exenatide plus basal resulted in lower daily BG than did exenatide alone (177 ± 41 mg/dL, P = 0.02). Exenatide plus basal resulted in a higher proportion of BG levels in target range between 70 and 180 mg/dL compared with exenatide and basal-bolus (78% vs. 62% vs. 63%, respectively, P = 0.023). More patients in the exenatide and exenatide plus basal groups experienced nausea or vomiting than in the basal-bolus group (10% vs. 11% vs. 2%, P = 0.17), with three patients (6%) discontinued exenatide owing to adverse events. There were no differences in hypoglycemia <54 mg/dL (2% vs. 0% vs. 4%, P = 0.77) or length of stay (5 vs. 4 vs. 4 days, P = 0.23) among basal plus exenatide, exenatide, and basal-bolus groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pilot study indicate that exenatide alone or in combination with basal insulin is safe and effective for the management of hospitalized general medical and surgical patients with T2D.

Impact of intravenous exenatide infusion for perioperative blood glucose control on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injuries after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: sub study of the phase II/III ExSTRESS randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to investigate whether intravenous (iv) infusion of exenatide, a synthetic GLP-1 receptor agonist, could provide a protective effect against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A sub study analysis of patients > 18 years admitted for elective CABG and included in the ExSTRESS trial was conducted. Patients were randomized to receive either iv exenatide (1-h bolus of 0.05 µg min^-1 followed by a constant infusion of 0.025 µg min^-1) (exenatide group) or iv insulin therapy (control group) for blood glucose control (target range 100-139 mg dl^-1) during the first 48 h after surgical incision. All serum levels of troponin I measured during routine care in the Cardiac Surgery ICU were recorded. The primary outcome was the highest value of plasma concentration of troponin I measured between 12 and 24 h after ICU admission. The proportion of patients presenting an echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 50% at the follow-up consultation was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Finally, 43 and 49 patients were analyzed in the control and exenatide groups, respectively {age: 69 [61-76] versus 71 [63-75] years; baseline LVEF < 50%: 6 (14%) versus 16 (32%) patients; on-pump surgery: 29 (67%) versus 33 (67%) patients}. The primary outcome did not significantly differ between the two groups (3.34 [1.06-6.19] µg l^-1 versus 2.64 [1.29-3.85] µg l^-1 in the control and exenatide groups, respectively; mean difference (MD) [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] 0.16 [- 0.25; 0.57], p = 0.54). The highest troponin value measured during the first 72 h in the ICU was 6.34 [1.36-10.90] versus 5.04 [2.39-7.18] µg l^-1, in the control and exenatide groups respectively (MD [95% CI] 0.20 [- 0.22; 0.61], p = 0.39). At the follow-up consultation, 5 (12%) versus 8 (16%) patients presented a LVEF < 50% in the control and in the exenatide groups respectively (relative risk [95% CI] 0.68 [0.16; 2.59], p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative iv exenatide did not provide any additional cardioprotective effect compared to iv insulin in low-risk patients undergoing scheduled CABG surgery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01969149, date of registration: January 7th, 2015; EudraCT No. 2009-009254-25 A, date of registration: January 6th, 2009.

Effect of continuous exenatide infusion on cardiac function and peri-operative glucose control in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A single-blind, randomized controlled trial

We performed a randomized controlled trial with the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist exenatide as add-on to standard peri-operative insulin therapy in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. The aims of the study were to intensify peri-operative glucose control while minimizing the risk of hypoglycaemia and to evaluate the suggested cardioprotective effects of GLP-1-based treatments. A total of 38 patients with decreased left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction ≤50%) scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were randomized to receive either exenatide or placebo in a continuous 72-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion on top of standard peri-operative insulin therapy. While no significant difference in postoperative echocardiographic variables was found between the groups, participants receiving exenatide showed improved peri-operative glucose control as compared with the placebo group (average glycaemia 6.4 ± 0.5 vs 7.3 ± 0.8 mmol/L; P < .001; percentage of time in target range of 4.5-6.5 mmol/L 54.8% ± 14.5% vs 38.6% ± 14.4%; P = .001; percentage of time above target range 39.7% ± 13.9% vs 52.8% ± 15.2%; P = .009) without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia (glycaemia <3.3 mmol/L: 0.10 ± 0.32 vs 0.21 ± 0.42 episodes per participant; P = .586). Continuous administration of i.v. exenatide in patients undergoing elective CABG could provide a safe option for intensifying the peri-operative glucose management of such patients.

Clinical Effectiveness of Intravenous Exenatide Infusion in Perioperative Glycemic Control after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Background

We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of intravenous exenatide compared to insulin in perioperative blood glucose control in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery patients.

Methods

Patients more than 18 yr old admitted for elective coronary artery bypass grafting were included in a phase II/III nonblinded randomized superiority trial. Current insulin use and creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml/min were exclusion criteria. Two groups were compared: the exenatide group, receiving exenatide (1-h bolus of 0.05 µg/min followed by a constant infusion of 0.025 µg/min), and the control group, receiving insulin therapy. The blood glucose target range was 100 to 139 mg/dl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who spent at least 50% of the study period within the target range. The consumption of insulin (Cinsulin) and the time to start insulin (Tinsulin) were compared between the two groups.

Results

In total, 53 and 51 patients were included and analyzed in the exenatide and control groups, respectively (age: 70 ± 9 vs. 68 ± 11 yr; diabetes mellitus: 12 [23%] vs. 10 [20%]). The primary outcome was observed in 38 (72%) patients in the exenatide group and in 41 (80%) patients in the control group (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.85 [0.34 to 2.11]; P = 0.30). Cinsulin was significantly lower (60 [40 to 80] vs. 92 [63 to 121] U, P &lt; 0.001), and Tinsulin was significantly longer (12 [7 to 16] vs. 7 [5 to 10] h, P = 0.02) in the exenatide group.

Conclusions

Exenatide alone at the dose used was not enough to achieve adequate blood glucose control in coronary artery bypass grafting patients, but it reduces overall consumption of insulin and increases the time to initiation of insulin.

Cardiovascular Safety of Antidiabetic Drugs in the Hospital Setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with diabetes and/or stress hyperglycemia requires good glycemic control in the hospital setting, often requiring the use of glucose-lowering therapy. Standard-of-care dictates that non-insulin therapy be discontinued, with insulin therapy initiated using a basal-bolus approach. However, insulin is associated with a high risk for hypoglycemia and medical errors. Alternatives to insulin are needed in the inpatient setting, but the cardiovascular (CV) safety of non-insulin therapy is a concern.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most studies of antidiabetic drugs have been performed in the outpatient setting, and except for insulin therapy, trials in the inpatient setting have been insufficient to establish CV safety. Randomized controlled trials support the safety of insulin with more moderate glycemic control in the hospital, when hypoglycemia is minimized. Two recent multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials support the safety of sitagliptin, a dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i), in hospitalized patients, although the sample sizes were likely too small to detect CV events. Small trials suggest a possible CV benefit of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy. A paucity of evidence and presence of side effects and cautions with insulin secretagogues, sodium glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors, and metformin preclude their routine use in the hospital setting. Available evidence is inadequate to evaluate the CV safety of most antidiabetic drug classes in the hospital setting. However, preliminary data from randomized clinical trials suggest the potential safety of the DPP4i sitagliptin.

Update on Glucose Management Among Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized on Medical and Surgical Wards

Hyperglycemia is a common issue affecting inpatient care. Although this is in part because of the higher rate of hospitalization among patients with preexisting diabetes, multiple factors complicate inpatient glucose management, including acute stress from illness or surgery, erratic dietary intake, and contribution of medications. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that poorly controlled blood glucose levels are associated with negative clinical outcomes, such as increased mortality, higher rate of surgical complications, and longer length of hospital stay. Given these concerns, there has been extensive study of the optimal strategy for management of glucose levels, with the bulk of existing literature focusing on insulin therapy in the intensive care unit setting. This review shifts the focus to the general adult medical and surgical wards, using clinical guidelines and sentinel studies to describe the scientific basis behind the current basal-bolus insulin-based approach to blood sugar management among noncritically ill inpatients. Patient-centered clinical trials looking at alternative dosing regimens and insulin analog and noninsulin agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist therapies, introduce safe and effective options in the management of inpatient hyperglycemia. Data from these studies reveal that these approaches are of comparable safety and efficacy to the traditional basal-bolus insulin regimen, and may offer additional benefit in terms of less monitoring requirements and lower rates of hypoglycemia. Although existing data are encouraging, outcome studies will be needed to better establish the clinical impact of these more recently proposed approaches in an effort to broaden and improve current clinical practices in inpatient diabetes care.

Closed-loop insulin delivery in inpatients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND

We assessed whether fully closed-loop insulin delivery (the so-called artificial pancreas) is safe and effective compared with standard subcutaneous insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in the general ward.

METHODS

For this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin therapy. Patients were recruited from general wards at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated minimisation method to receive closed-loop insulin delivery (using a model-predictive control algorithm to direct subcutaneous delivery of rapid-acting insulin analogue without meal-time insulin boluses) or conventional subcutaneous insulin delivery according to local clinical guidelines. The primary outcome was time spent in the target glucose concentration range of 5·6-10·0 mmol/L during the 72 h study period. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774565.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 20, 2015, and March 24, 2016, we enrolled 40 participants, of whom 20 were randomly assigned to the closed-loop intervention group and 20 to the control group. The proportion of time spent in the target glucose range was 59·8% (SD 18·7) in the closed-loop group and 38·1% (16·7) in the control group (difference 21·8% [95% CI 10·4-33·1]; p=0·0004). No episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia with ketonaemia occurred in either group. One adverse event unrelated to study devices occurred during the study (gastrointestinal bleed).

INTERPRETATION

Closed-loop insulin delivery without meal-time boluses is effective and safe in insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes in the general ward.

FUNDING

Diabetes UK; European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes; JDRF; National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; Wellcome Trust.

Liraglutide as an Alternative to Insulin for Glycemic Control in Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized, Open-label, Clinical Study

Background:

Intravenous insulin is the cornerstone in the management of hyperglycemia in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We studied the efficacy of liraglutide compared with insulin in the ICU.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective, open-labeled, randomized study, we included 120 patients (15–65 years, either sex) admitted to ICU with capillary blood glucose (CBG) between 181 and 300 mg/dl. We excluded patients with secondary diabetes and APACHE score >24. The patients were divided into two groups (n = 60) based on the CBG: Group 1 (181–240) and Group 2 (241–300). They were randomized further into four subgroups (n = 30) to receive insulin (Groups 1A and 2A), liraglutide (Group 1B), and insulin with liraglutide (Group 2B). The primary outcome was the ability to achieve CBG below 180 mg/dL at the end of 24 h. The secondary outcomes include mortality at 1 month and hospital stay. Data and results were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test, paired t- test, and Chi-square tests.

Results:

The mean age of the patients (93M and 27F) was 57.1 ± 13.9 years, hospital stay (16.9 ± 7.5 days), and CBG was 240.5 ± 36.2 mg/dl. The primary outcome was reached in 26, 27, 25, and 28 patients of Groups 1A, 2A, 1B, and 2B, respectively. The 30-day mortality and hospital stay were similar across all the four groups. Hypoglycemia was common with insulin and gastrointestinal side effects were more common with liraglutide (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Liraglutide is a viable alternative to insulin for glycemic control in the ICU. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to confirm our findings.

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.

Glucagon orchestrates stress-induced hyperglycaemia

Hyperglycaemia is commonly observed on admission and during hospitalization for medical illness, traumatic injury, burn and surgical intervention. This transient hyperglycaemia is referred to as stress-induced hyperglycaemia (SIH) and frequently occurs in individuals without a history of diabetes. SIH has many of the same underlying hormonal disturbances as diabetes mellitus, specifically absolute or relative insulin deficiency and glucagon excess. SIH has the added features of elevated blood levels of catecholamines and cortisol, which are not typically present in people with diabetes who are not acutely ill. The seriousness of SIH is highlighted by its greater morbidity and mortality rates compared with those of hospitalized patients with normal glucose levels, and this increased risk is particularly high in those without pre-existing diabetes. Insulin is the treatment standard for SIH, but new therapies that reduce glucose variability and hypoglycaemia are desired. In the present review, we focus on the key role of glucagon in SIH and discuss the potential use of glucagon receptor blockers and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in SIH to achieve target glucose control.

The potential role of incretin therapy in the hospital setting

Hyperglycemia has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Insulin has traditionally been the drug of choice for managing hyperglycemia in this setting, but carries a significant risk of hypoglycemia. Incretin-based therapies, including glucagon-like peptide-1, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, have potential use in the hospital. These agents have a relatively low risk of hypoglycemia, favorable short-term side effect profile, and can be used alone or in combination with insulin. Several small studies have supported the safety and efficacy of incretin therapies in the inpatient setting with the majority of data coming from the intensive care setting. Large-scale clinical studies are needed to further evaluate the potential role of incretins in the management of inpatient hyperglycemia.

Effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide on gastric emptying, glycaemia and insulinaemia during critical illness: a prospective, double blind, randomised, crossover study

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is used to treat hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients but can cause hypoglycaemia, which is associated with poorer outcomes. In health glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a potent glucose-lowering peptide that does not cause hypoglycaemia. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of exogenous GIP infusion on blood glucose concentrations, glucose absorption, insulinaemia and gastric emptying in critically ill patients without known diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 20 ventilated patients (Median age 61 (range: 22 to 79) years, APACHE II 21.5 (17 to 26), BMI 28 (21 to 40) kg/m(2)) without known diabetes were studied on two consecutive days in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over fashion. Intravenous GIP (4 pmol/kg/min) or placebo (0.9% saline) was infused between T = -60 to 300 minutes. At T0, 100 ml of liquid nutrient (2 kcal/ml) containing 3-O-Methylglucose (3-OMG), 100 mcg of Octanoic acid and 20 MBq Tc-99 m Calcium Phytate, was administered via a nasogastric tube. Blood glucose and serum 3-OMG (an index of glucose absorption) concentrations were measured. Gastric emptying, insulin and glucagon levels and plasma GIP concentrations were also measured.

RESULTS

While administration of GIP increased plasma GIP concentrations three- to four-fold (T = -60 23.9 (16.5 to 36.7) versus T = 0 84.2 (65.3 to 111.1); P <0.001) and plasma glucagon (iAUC300 4217 (1891 to 7715) versus 1232 (293 to 4545) pg/ml.300 minutes; P = 0.04), there were no effects on postprandial blood glucose (AUC300 2843 (2568 to 3338) versus 2819 (2550 to 3497) mmol/L.300 minutes; P = 0.86), gastric emptying (AUC300 15611 (10993 to 18062) versus 15660 (9694 to 22618) %.300 minutes; P = 0.61), glucose absorption (AUC300 50.6 (22.3 to 74.2) versus 64.3 (9.9 to 96.3) mmol/L.300 minutes; P = 0.62) or plasma insulin (AUC300 3945 (2280 to 6731) versus 3479 (2316 to 6081) mU/L.300 minutes; P = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to its profound insulinotropic effect in health, the administration of GIP at pharmacological doses does not appear to affect glycaemia, gastric emptying, glucose absorption or insulinaemia in the critically ill patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000488808. Registered 3 May 2012.

Practical implementation of incretin-based therapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Hyperglycemia in patients with and without a prior history of diabetes is an independent marker of morbidity and mortality in critically and noncritically ill patients. Improvement of glycemic control with insulin therapy has been shown to reduce hospital complications in patients with diabetes, but also results in increased rates of hypoglycemia, which have been linked to poor outcomes. Thus, alternative treatment options that can normalize blood glucose levels without undue hypoglycemia are being sought. Incretin-based therapies, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent fashion, thus not causing hypoglycemia. Alternative points of view exist regarding insulin versus incretin therapy for the care of these patients. We have brought together the authors on the opposite sides of this discussion with the objective of providing a rational synthesis on how to achieve the best possible control of glycemia in the hospital, using both standard insulin approaches and incretin-based therapies to improve patient outcomes. This review examines the benefits of incretin-based therapy in improving glycemic control in hospitalized patients with stress-induced diabetes and in diabetic patients in critical care and non-critical care settings.

Pharmacotherapy for Hyperglycemia in Noncritically Ill Hospitalized Patients

In Brief Hyperglycemia in the hospital setting affects 38-46% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Evidence from observational studies indicates that inpatient hyperglycemia, in patients with and without diabetes, is associated with increased risks of complications and mortality. Substantial evidence indicates that correction of hyperglycemia through insulin administration reduces hospital complications and mortality in critically ill patients, as well as in general medicine and surgery patients. This article provides a review of the evidence on the different therapies available for hyperglycemia management in noncritically ill hospitalized patients.

Glucose control in non-critically ill inpatients with diabetes: towards closed-loop

Inpatient glycaemic control remains an important issue due to the increasing number of patients with diabetes admitted to hospital. Morbidity and mortality in hospital are associated with poor glucose control, and cost of hospitalization is higher compared to non-diabetes patients. Guidelines for inpatient glycaemic control in the non-critical care setting have been published. Current recommendations include basal-bolus insulin therapy, regular glucose monitoring, as well as enhancing healthcare provider's role and knowledge. In spite of growing focus, implementation in practice is limited, mainly due to increasing workload burden on staff and fear of hypoglycaemia. Advances in healthcare technology may contribute to an improvement of inpatient diabetes care. Integration of glucose measurements with healthcare records and computerized glycaemic control protocols are currently being used in some institutions. Recent interests in continuous glucose monitoring have led to studies assessing its utilization in inpatients. Automation of glucose monitoring and insulin delivery may provide a safe and efficacious tool for hospital staff to manage inpatient hyperglycaemia, whilst reducing staff workload. This review summarizes the evidence on current approaches to managing inpatient glycaemic control; its utility and limitations. We conclude by discussing the evidence from feasibility studies to date, on the potential use of closed loop in the non-critical care setting and its implication for future studies.

The use of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents to improve glycemia without hypoglycemia in the hospital setting: focus on incretins

Patients with hyperglycemia in hospital have increased adverse outcomes compared with patients with normoglycemia, and the pathophysiological causes seem relatively well understood. Thus, a rationale for excellent glycemic control exists. Benefits of control with intensive insulin regimes are highly likely based on multiple published studies. However, hypoglycemia frequency increases and adverse outcomes of hypoglycemia accrue. This has resulted in a 'push' for therapeutic nihilism, accepting higher glycemic levels to avoid hypoglycemia. One would ideally prefer to optimize glycemia, treating hyperglycemia while minimizing or avoiding hypoglycemia. Thus, one would welcome therapies and processes of care to optimize this benefit/ risk ratio. We review the logic and early studies that suggest that incretin therapy use in-hospital can achieve this ideal. We strongly urge randomized prospective controlled studies to test our proposal and we offer a process of care to facilitate this research and their use in our hospitalized patients.

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

Hyperglycaemia occurs frequently in the critically ill, even in those patients without a history of diabetes. The mechanisms underlying hyperglycaemia in this group are complex and incompletely defined. In health, the gastrointestinal tract is an important modulator of postprandial glycaemic excursions and both the rate of gastric emptying and the so-called incretin hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, are pivotal determinants of postprandial glycaemia. Incretin-based therapies (that is, glucagon-like peptide- 1 agonists and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors) have recently been incorporated into standard algorithms for the management of hyperglycaemia in ambulant patients with type 2 diabetes and, inevitably, an increasing number of patients who were receiving these classes of drugs prior to their acute illness will present to ICUs. This paper summarises current knowledge of the incretin effect as well as the incretin-based therapies that are available for the management of type 2 diabetes, and provides suggestions for the potential relevance of these agents in the management of dysglycaemia in the critically ill, particularly to normalise elevated blood glucose levels.

Is incretin-based therapy ready for the care of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes?: Insulin therapy has proven itself and is considered the mainstay of treatment

Significant data suggest that overt hyperglycemia, either observed with or without a prior diagnosis of diabetes, contributes to an increase in mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients. In this regard, goal-directed insulin therapy has remained as the standard of care for achieving and maintaining glycemic control in hospitalized patients with critical and noncritical illness. As such, protocols to assist in management of hyperglycemia in the inpatient setting have become commonplace in hospital settings. Clearly, insulin is a known entity, has been in clinical use for almost a century, and is effective. However, there are limitations to its use. Based on the observed mechanisms of action and efficacy, there has been a great interest in using incretin-based therapy with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists instead of, or complementary to, an insulin-based approach to improve glycemic control in hospitalized, severely ill diabetic patients. To provide an understanding of both sides of the argument, we provide a discussion of this topic as part of this two-part point-counterpoint narrative. In the point narrative preceding the counterpoint narrative below, Drs. Schwartz and DeFronzo provide an opinion that now is the time to consider GLP-1 receptor agonists as a logical consideration for inpatient glycemic control. In the counterpoint narrative provided below, Drs. Umpierrez and Korytkowski provide a defense of insulin in the inpatient setting as the unquestioned gold standard for glycemic management in hospitalized settings.