Citations

Background: We reviewed the care of a large cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus on insulin pump therapy who required an inpatient stay. Methods: Records were reviewed of patients hospitalized between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011. Results: A total of 136 patients using insulin pumps had 253 hospitalizations. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 55 (16) years, diabetes duration was 29 (15) years, and pump duration was 6 (5) years. Insulin pump therapy was continued in 164 (65%) hospitalizations. Adherence to core process measures improved over time: by 2011, 100% of cases had an endocrinology consultation, 100% had the required insulin pump order set completed, and 94% had documentation of the signed agreement specifying patient responsibilities for continued use of the technology while hospitalized. Documentation of the insulin pump flow sheet also increased but could still be located in only 64% of cases by the end of 2011. Mean glucose was not significantly different among patients who remained on insulin pump therapy compared to those for whom it was discontinued ( p > .1), but episodes of severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dl) and hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) were significantly less common among pump users. No pump site infections, mechanical pump failures, or episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed among patients remaining on therapy. Conclusions: With appropriate patient selection and usage guidelines, most patients using insulin pumps can safely have their therapy transitioned to the inpatient setting. Further study is needed to determine whether this approach can be translated to other hospital settings.

Despite the emergence of glucometrics (i.e., systematic analysis of data on blood glucose levels of inpatients) as a subject of high interest, there remains a lack of standardization on how glucose parameters are measured and reported. This dilemma must be resolved before a national benchmarking process can be developed that will allow institutions to track and compare inpatient glucose control performance against established guidelines and that can also be supported by quality care organizations. In this article, we review some of the questions that need to be resolved through consensus and review of the evidence, and discuss some of the limitations in analyzing and reporting inpatient glucose data that must be addressed (or at least accepted as limitations) before hospitals can commit resources to gathering, compiling, and presenting inpatient glucose statistics as a health care quality measure. Standards must include consensus on which measures to report, the unit of analysis, definitions of targets for hyperglycemia treatment, a definition of hypoglycemia, determination of how data should be gathered (from chart review or from laboratory information systems), and which type of sample (blood or point of care) should be used for analysis of glycemic control. Hospitals and/or their representatives should be included in the discussion. For inpatient glucose control to remain a focus of interest, further dialogue and consensus on the topic are needed.

Case reports indicate that diabetes patients receiving outpatient insulin pump therapy have been allowed to continue treatment during surgical procedures. Although allowed during surgery, there is actually little information in the medical literature on how to manage patients receiving insulin pump therapy during a planned surgical procedure. A multidisciplinary work group reviewed current information regarding the use of insulin pumps in the perioperative period. Although the work group identified safety issues specific to surgical scenarios, it believed that with the use of standardized guidelines and a checklist, continuation of insulin pump therapy during the perioperative period is feasible. A sample set of protocols have been developed and are summarized. A policy outlining clear procedures should be established at the institutional level to guide physicians and other staf if the devices are to be employed during the perioperative period. Additional clinical experience with the technology in surgical scenarios is needed, and consensus should be developed for insulin pump use in the perioperative phases of care.

Objective: The objective is to report a contemporary population-based estimate of hypoglycemia requiring emergency medical services (EMS), its burden on medical resources, and its associated mortality in patients with or without diabetes mellitus (DM, non-DM), which will enable development of prospective strategies that will capture hypoglycemia promptly and provide an integrated approach for prevention of such episodes. Methods: We retrieved all ambulance calls activated for hypoglycemia in Olmsted County, Minnesota, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. Results: A total of 1473 calls were made by 914 people (DM 8%, non-DM 16%, unknown DM status 3%). Mean age was 60 ± 16 years with 49% being female. A higher percentage of calls were made by DM patients (87%) with proportionally fewer calls coming from non-DM patients (11%) (chi-square test, p < .001), and the remaining 2% calls by people with unknown DM status. Emergency room transportation and hospitalization were significantly higher in non-DM patients compared to DM patients ( p < .001) and type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to type 1 diabetes mellitus ( p < .001). Sulphonylureas alone or in combination with insulin varied during the study period ( p = .01). The change in incidence of EMS for hypoglycemia was tracked during this period. However, causality has not been established. Death occurred in 240 people, 1.2 (interquartile range 0.2–2.7) years after their first event. After adjusting for age, mortality was higher in non-DM patients compared with DM patients ( p < .001) but was not different between the two types of DM. Conclusions: The population burden of EMS requiring hypoglycemia is high in both DM and non-DM patients, and imposes significant burden on medical resources. It is associated with long-term mortality.

Background: Safe and effective glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) continues to be actively pursued. Large clinical trials have examined the safety and efficacy of insulin infusion protocols in medical and surgical ICUs. We report experiences of a single-center standardized nurse-driven insulin infusion protocol in three ICUs in an observational quality-improvement study. Method: We analyzed the hourly point-of-care arterial blood glucose obtained during ICU insulin infusion protocol (protocol A) with a glucose target of 80–130 mg/dl in medical and surgical ICUs in February 2009. Following Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation (NICE-SUGAR) study results, the protocol was amended (protocol B) to achieve target glucose of 110–150 mg/dl. The performance of protocol B was assessed in the ICUs in May 2010 and compared with protocol A with respect to glucose concentrations and rates of severe (<40 mg/dl) and moderate (40–60 mg/dl) hypoglycemia. Results: With protocol A, in medical ( n = 44) and surgical ( n = 164) ICUs taken together, median glucose was 119 mg/dl, with severe and moderate hypoglycemia rates 1.4% (3/208) and 7.7% (16/208), respectively, which were significantly lower than those reported by the NICE-SUGAR and the Leuven studies. With protocol B, in medical ( n = 44) and surgical ( n = 167) ICUs taken together, median glucose was 132 mg/dl, with severe and moderate hypoglycemia of 0 % (0/211) and 0.5% (1/211), respectively. Conclusion: The current ICU insulin infusion protocol (protocol B) reduces severe and moderate hypoglycemia without compromising glucose control when compared with protocol A. This could potentially impact patient-important outcomes.

Background: A concept for a tear glucose sensor based on amperometric measurement of enzymatic oxidation of glucose was previously presented, using glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide (GDH-FAD) as the enzyme. Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide is further characterized in this article and evaluated for suitability in glucose-sensing applications in purified tear-like saline, with specific attention to the effect of interfering substances only. These interferents are specifically saccharides that could interact with the enzymatic activity seen in the sensor's performance. Methods: Bench top amperometric glucose assays were performed using an assay solution of GDH-FAD and ferricyanide redox mediator with samples of glucose, mannose, lactose, maltose, galactose, fructose, sucrose, and xylose at varying concentrations to evaluate specificity, linear dynamic range, signal size, and signal-to-noise ratio. A comparison study was done by substituting an equivalent activity unit concentration of glucose oxidase (GOx) for GDH-FAD. Results: Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide was found to be more sensitive than GOx, producing larger oxidation currents than GOx on an identical glucose concentration gradient, and GDH-FAD exhibited larger slope response (-5.65 × 10 −7 versus −3.11 × 10 −7 A/mM), signal-to-noise ratio (18.04 versus 2.62), and linear dynamic range (0–30 versus 0–10 mM), and lower background signal (−7.12 versus −261.63 nA) than GOx under the same assay conditions. GDH-FAD responds equally to glucose and xylose but is otherwise specific for glucose. Conclusion: Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide compares favorably with GOx in many sensor-relevant attributes and may enable measurement of glucose concentrations both higher and lower than those measurable by GOx. GDH-FAD is a viable enzyme to use in the proposed amperometric tear glucose sensor system and perhaps also in detecting extreme hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia in blood.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized trials of adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analytic estimates of treatment effects were generated using a random-effects model. Results: Nineteen trials were eligible and provided data for meta-analysis. Overall, CGM was associated with a significant reduction in mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c; weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.27% (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.44 to −0.10)]. This was true for adults with T1DM as well as T2DM [WMD −0.50% (95% CI −0.69 to −0.30) and −0.70 (95% CI, −1.14 to −0.27), respectively]. No significant effect was noted in children and adolescents. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between studies of real-time versus non-real-time devices (WMD −0.22%, 95% CI, −0.59 to 0.15 versus −0.30%, 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.10; p for interaction 0.71). The quality of evidence was moderate due to imprecision, suggesting increased risk for bias. Data for the incidence of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia were sparse and imprecise. In studies that reported patient satisfaction, users felt confident about the device and gave positive reviews. Conclusion: Continuous glucose monitoring seems to help improve glycemic control in adults with T1DM and T2DM. The effect on hypoglycemia incidence is imprecise and unclear. Larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of CGM in reducing patient-important complications without significantly increasing the burden of care for patients with diabetes.

Many reports have documented the negative health consequences that environmental stressors can have on patients with diabetes. Studies examining the interaction between the environment and a patient with diabetes can be unified under a single discipline termed “geoenvironmental diabetology.” Geoenvironmental diabetology is defined more specifically as the study of how geophysical phenomena impact a patient with diabetes, to include effects on metabolic control, ancillary equipment (e.g., glucometers and insulin pumps), medications, supplies, access to care, and influences on the adaptive strategies employed by patients to care for their diabetes under extreme circumstances. Geological events such as natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes) or extreme weather (e.g., heat waves) are examples of stressors that can affect patients with diabetes and that can be included under the heading of geoenvironmental diabetology. As proposed here, geoenvironmental diabetology refers to how events in the physical world affect those with diagnosed diabetes, rather than how environmental factors might trigger development of disease. As the global prevalence of diabetes continues to increase, including in parts of the world that are especially vulnerable to disasters and climate change, further discussion is warranted on how to best prepare for management of diabetes under conditions of extreme geological and weather events and a changing climate. An overview is presented of various studies that have detailed how geoenvironmental phenomena can adversely affect patients with diabetes and concludes with a discussion of requirements for developing strategies for geoenvironmental diabetes management.

Background: This study aims to identify self-management strategies used by patients with diabetes in hot weather, examine knowledge of safe temperatures and exposure times, and evaluate comprehension of weather data. Methods: Patients attending an endocrinology clinic in southwestern United States were surveyed. Results: One hundred fifty-two surveys completed from November 30 to December 31, 2009 were analyzed. Mean patient age was 64 years; diabetes duration, 15 years; 51% were women, 83% had type 2 diabetes, 58% were non Hispanic white, and 77% were on insulin injections. Mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.9%; 38% had hemoglobin A1c values of 8.0% or higher. Patients used an array of personal protective measures during hot weather, and 71% limited heat exposure to less than one hour. Respondents typically took steps to protect their diabetes medication and supplies, but 37% chose to leave medications and supplies at home. Although 73% of respondents had received information regarding the effect of heat on insulin, only 39% had received information about the effect of heat on oral medications, 41% on glucose meters, and 38% on glucose test strips. The temperature at which patients took protective measures varied. Only 55% knew the definition of the heat index. Conclusion: Most survey participants took measures to protect themselves from the heat, although gaps in knowledge were evident. Many patients had suboptimal glycemic control, placing them potentially at risk for dehydration during the hottest months. Increased public awareness of this topic is needed, and diabetes education programs should include information about the heat where appropriate.

Background: Insulin pump therapy is a complex technology prone to errors when employed in the hospital setting. When patients on insulin pump therapy require hospitalization, practitioners caring for them must decide whether to allow continued pump use. We provide the largest review regarding transitioning insulin pump therapy from the outpatient to inpatient setting. Method: Records of inpatient insulin pump users were retrospectively analyzed at a metropolitan Phoenix hospital between January 2006 and December 2009. Adherence to institutional procedures on insulin pump use was assessed, glycemic control was determined, and adverse events were examined. Results: We examined records on 65 patients with insulin pumps, totaling 125 hospitalizations. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 55 (17) years, diabetes duration was 27 (14) years, pump duration was 6 (5) years, length of hospital stay was 4.7 (6.3) days, hemoglobin A1c was 7.3 (1.3)%, 85% had type 1 diabetes mellitus, 57% were women, and 97% were white. Admissions involving insulin pumps increased (23 in 2006, 17 in 2007, 40 in 2008, and 45 in 2009). Insulin pump therapy was continued in 83 (66%) hospitalizations. Among these hospitalizations, endocrinology consultations were obtained in 89%, consent agreements were found in 83%, insulin pump order sets were completed in 89%, admission glucose was checked in 100%, and nursing assessments of pump insertion sites were documented in 89%, but bedside insulin pump flow sheets were found in only 55%. Mean glucose of 175 (57) mg/dl was not significantly different than that in hospitalizations where insulin pumps were discontinued [175 (42) mg/dl] or used intermittently [177 (7) mg/dl]. There was one instance of a pump catheter kinking; however, no other adverse events (pump site infections, mechanical pump failure, diabetic ketoacidosis) were observed, and there were no use-related fatalities. Conclusions: Most patients using insulin pumps can safely have their therapy transitioned when hospitalized. A policy on inpatient continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use can be successfully implemented. Compliance with required procedures can be achieved, although there was room to improve adherence with some process measures. Further study is needed to determine how to optimize glycemic control when pumps are allowed during hospitalization.