Glucose control after glucocorticoid administration in hospitalized patients – a retrospective analysis

Background Glucocorticoid (GC)-induced hyperglycemia is a frequent adverse effect in hospitalized patients. Guidelines recommend insulin treatment to a target range of 6–10 mmol/L (108–180 mg/dl), but efficacies of particular regimes have not been well-studied. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, hospitalized patients receiving GCs at the medical ward were analyzed by treatment (basal-bolus vs. bolus-only vs. pre-mixed insulin) and compared to a non-insulin-therapy reference group. Coefficients of glucose variation (CV), percentage of glucose readings in range (4–10 mmol/L (72–180 mg/dl)) and hypoglycemia (< 4 mmol/L (< 72 mg/dl)) were evaluated. Results Of 2424 hospitalized patients receiving systemic GCs, 875 (36%) developed GC-induced hyperglycemia. 427 patients (17%) had a previous diagnosis of diabetes. Adjusted relative risk ratios (RRR) for the top tertile of CV (> 29%) were 1.47 (95% Cl 1.01–2.15) for bolus-only insulin, 4.77 (95% CI 2.67–8.51) for basal-bolus insulin, and 4.98 (95% CI 2.02–12.31) for premixed insulin, respectively. Adjusted RRR for percentages of glucose readings in range were 0.98 (95% Cl 0.97–0.99) for basal-bolus insulin, 0.99 (95% Cl 0.98–1.00) for premixed insulin, and 1.01 (95% Cl 1.00–1.01) for bolus-only insulin, respectively. Adjusted RRR for hypoglycemia was 13.17 (95% Cl 4.35–39.90) for basal-bolus insulin, 8.92 (95% Cl 2.60–30.63) for premixed insulin, and 2.99 (95% Cl 1.01–8.87) for bolus-only insulin, respectively. Conclusions Current guidelines recommend a basal-bolus regimen for treatment of GC-induced hyperglycemia, but we found similar outcomes with pre-mixed and bolus-only insulin regimens. As GC-induced hyperglycemia is a frequent issue in hospitalized patients, it might be reasonable to prospectively study the ideal regimen.

Automated Bolus Calculators and Connected Insulin Pens: A Smart Combination for Multiple Daily Injection Insulin Therapy

Although automated bolus calculators (ABCs) have become a mainstay in insulin pump therapy, they have not achieved similar levels of adoption by persons with diabetes (PWD) using multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI). Only a small number of blood glucose meters (BGMs) have incorporated ABC functionality and the proliferation of unregulated ABC smartphone apps raised safety concerns and eventually led to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–mandated regulatory oversight for these types of apps. With the recent introduction of smartphone-connected insulin pens, manufacturer-supported companion ABC apps may offer an ideal solution for PWD and health care professionals that reduces errors of mental math when calculating bolus insulin dosing, increases the quality of diabetes data reporting, and improves glycemic outcomes.

Reliability of Inpatient CGM: Comparison to Standard of Care

Background: Optimal inpatient glycemic management targets a blood glucose (BG) of 140-180 mg/dL and is an important safety measure for hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. Traditional barriers to appropriate insulin administration include incorrect timing of prandial insulin administration, failure to administer basal insulin to persons with insulin deficiency/type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM), and inaccurate insulin dosing or timing resulting in hypoglycemia. Given the ongoing rapid assimilation of technology to manage our patients with DM, we investigated the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the inpatient setting as a potential solution to traditional barriers to optimal hyperglycemia management for inpatient care. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of use of inpatient CGM for insulin dosing in comparison with current standard of care and whether CGM could aid in minimizing hypoglycemic events. Methods: This study evaluated the use of Abbott professional (blinded) Freestyle Libre CGMs in participants treated with basal bolus insulin administered with subcutaneous insulin (basal bolus therapy [BBT]: n = 20) or on intravenous insulin (IVI) infusions (n =16) compared with standard point of care (POC) BG measurements. All participants on IVI were admitted with a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The CGM data was not available in real time. Sensors were removed at the time of discharge and data uploaded to Libre View. Continuous BG data were aggregated for each subject and matched to POC BG or lab chemistry values within five minutes. The POC BG results were assessed for comparability (CGM vs standard BG testing). Data were further analyzed for clinical decision-making for correction insulin. Results: The overall mean absolute relative difference including both IVI and BBT groups was 22.3% (SD, 9.0), with a median of 20.0%. By group, the IVI arm mean was 19.6% (SD, 9.4), with a median of 16.0%; for BBT, the arm mean was 24.6% (SD, 8.1), with a median 23.4%. Using the Wilcoxon two-sample test, the means were not different ( P = .10), whereas the medians were ( P = .015). The CGM consistently reported lower glucose values than POC BG in the majority of paired values (BBT arm mean difference = 44.8 mg/dL, IVI mean difference = 19.7 mg/dL). Glucose results were in agreement for the group 83% of the time with Bland-Altman Plot of Difference versus the mean of all glucometric data. Analysis of correction dose insulin using either CGM or POC BG values resulted in a negligible difference in calculated insulin dose recommended in those receiving subcutaneous insulin. Corrective doses were based on weight and insulin sensitivity (type 1 vs type 2 DM). Participants initially on IVI were included in a data set of BBT once IVI therapy ceased and basal bolus insulin regimen was started. The data of all basal bolus therapy participants with 1142 paired values of CGM versus POC glucose were used. The dosing difference was less for CGM than POC BG in the majority of paired values, and there was an absolute difference in dose of insulin of only 1.34 units. In the IVI group with 300 paired values of CGM versus POC glucose, there was an absolute difference in dose of insulin of only 0.74 units. About a third of the patients studied in the BBT arm experienced a hypoglycemic event with POC BG <70 mg/dL. If used in real time, CGM would have identified a hypoglycemic event for our patients on average 3 hours and 34 minutes before it was detected by standard POC BG. Two participants incurred severe nocturnal hypoglycemia during the study with POC BG <54 mg/dL with hypoglycemia detected on CGM up to 3 hours and 42 minutes before POC testing. Conclusions: These results suggest that the use of inpatient CGM arrives at similar correction insulin dosing. The routine use of CGM for inpatients would consistently underestimate the BG compared with POC BG and could aid in minimizing and predicting hypoglycemia in the hospital setting. Our data support that the model of adoption of real-time inpatient CGM technology is anticipated to have significant impact in the clinical setting in efforts to maintain adequate glycemic control targeting BG 140-180 mg/dL while minimizing the frequency of hypoglycemic events.

Pre-mixed insulin has a similar efficacy to basal-bolus insulin in reducing HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetics

A clinical decision report using: Fulcher G, Roberts A, Sinha A, Proietto J. What happens when patients require intensification from basal insulin? A retrospective audit of clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from four Australian centres. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 2015;108(3):405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2015.03.004 for a patient with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

The Role of Protein and Fat Intake on Insulin Therapy in Glycaemic Control of Paediatric Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Research Gaps

Carbohydrate counting (CHC) is the established form of calculating bolus insulin for meals in children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). With the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) observation time has become gapless. Recently, the impact of fat, protein and not only carbohydrates on prolonged postprandial hyperglycaemia have become more evident to patients and health-care professionals alike. However, there is no unified recommendation on how to calculate and best administer additional bolus insulin for these two macronutrients. The aim of this review is to investigate: the scientific evidence of how dietary fat and protein influence postprandial glucose levels; current recommendations on the adjustment of bolus insulin; and algorithms for insulin application in children with T1DM. A PubMed search for all articles addressing the role of fat and protein in paediatric (sub-)populations (<18 years old) and a mixed age population (paediatric and adult) with T1DM published in the last 10 years was performed. Conclusion: Only a small number of studies with a very low number of participants and high degree of heterogeneity was identified. While all studies concluded that additional bolus insulin for (high) fat and (high) protein is necessary, no consensus on when dietary fat and/or protein should be taken into calculation and no unified algorithm for insulin therapy in this context exists. A prolonged postprandial observation time is necessary to improve individual metabolic control. Further studies focusing on a stratified paediatric population to create a safe and effective algorithm, taking fat and protein into account, are necessary.

Faster Aspart: a fast-acting insulin analog for an optimal glycemic control

The basal-bolus insulin regimen in the management of diabetes is essential to achieve the recommended glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to reduce the incidence or the progression of chronic complications. HbA1c is influenced by either fasting plasma glucose and post-prandial hyperglycemia. Faster Aspart is an insulin Aspart with two additional excipients, L-arginine and niacinamide, which provide a faster subcutaneous absorption, the earlier onset of appearance, and consequently the optimization of post-prandial glucose control. Faster Aspart has been widely investigated in the ‘‘onset’’ clinical trials, which show better post-prandial glycemic excursions and noninferiority compared to insulin Aspart with HbA1c reduction. Clinical evidence demonstrates that faster Aspart is a therapeutic option able to provide clinical benefits over the current rapid-acting insulin analogs in terms of improved meal-related glycaemic control in subjects with diabetes. KEY WORDS post-prandial hyperglycemia; cardiovascular disease; insulin treatment; faster-acting insulin; faster aspart.

The Effect of Discontinuing Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin

<b>Objective: </b>To explore the effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) after 8 months of CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal without bolus insulin. <p><b>Research Design and Methods:</b> Multi-center trial with an initial randomization to either real-time CGM or blood glucose monitoring (BGM) for 8 months, followed by 6 months in which the BGM Group continued to use BGM (N=57) and the CGM Group was re-randomized either to continue CGM (N=53) or discontinue CGM with resumption of BGM for glucose monitoring (N=53). </p> <p><b>Results: </b>In the group that discontinued CGM, mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR), which improved from 38% prior to initiating CGM to 62% after 8 months of CGM, decreased after discontinuing CGM to 50% at 14 months (mean change from 8 to 14 months = -12%, 95% CI -21% to -3%, P=0.01). In the group continuing CGM, there was little change in TIR from 8 to 14 months (baseline 44%, 8 months 56%, 14 months 57%; mean change 8 to 14 months = 1%, 95% CI -11% to 12%, P=0.89). Comparing the two groups at 14 months, the adjusted treatment group difference in mean TIR was -6% (95% CI -16% to 4%, P=0.20).</p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b>In adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin who had been using real-time CGM for 8 months, discontinuing CGM resulted in a loss of about half of the initial gain in TIR that had been achieved during CGM use.</p>

The Effect of Discontinuing Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin

<b>Objective: </b>To explore the effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) after 8 months of CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal without bolus insulin. <p><b>Research Design and Methods:</b> Multi-center trial with an initial randomization to either real-time CGM or blood glucose monitoring (BGM) for 8 months, followed by 6 months in which the BGM Group continued to use BGM (N=57) and the CGM Group was re-randomized either to continue CGM (N=53) or discontinue CGM with resumption of BGM for glucose monitoring (N=53). </p> <p><b>Results: </b>In the group that discontinued CGM, mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR), which improved from 38% prior to initiating CGM to 62% after 8 months of CGM, decreased after discontinuing CGM to 50% at 14 months (mean change from 8 to 14 months = -12%, 95% CI -21% to -3%, P=0.01). In the group continuing CGM, there was little change in TIR from 8 to 14 months (baseline 44%, 8 months 56%, 14 months 57%; mean change 8 to 14 months = 1%, 95% CI -11% to 12%, P=0.89). Comparing the two groups at 14 months, the adjusted treatment group difference in mean TIR was -6% (95% CI -16% to 4%, P=0.20).</p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b>In adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin who had been using real-time CGM for 8 months, discontinuing CGM resulted in a loss of about half of the initial gain in TIR that had been achieved during CGM use.</p>