Comparison of Prevailing Insulin Regimens at Different Time Periods in Hospitalized Patients: A Real-World Experience from a Tertiary Hospital.

In-hospital Management of Diabetes

Review question/objective What type of insulin regimen (basal bolus insulin or other insulin regimens) for hospitalized adult non-critical care patients is more effective in achieving lower overall mean blood glucose and fewer episodes of hypoglycemia? Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider studies that include acute care, hospitalized, non-critical care patients, 18 years or older, females and males, with all types of conditions or diseases including surgical procedures, and at all stages of severity that required hyperglycemia management. Types of interventions This review will include studies that evaluated the effectiveness of basal bolus insulin protocol for hospitalized adult, non-critical care patients, which includes a combination of long and rapid acting insulin regimens as compared to insulin regimens using rapid acting or regular insulin alone for the treatment of hyperglycemia. Types of outcomes This review will consider studies that included the following outcome measures: •mean daily blood glucose levels; •overall mean blood glucose achieved during hospitalization; and •episodes of hypoglycemia.

Pharmacotherapy in Type 1 Diabetes

Randomized, open-label, parallel-group evaluations of basal-bolus therapy versus insulin lispro premixed therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve control with starter insulin treatment and continuing oral antihyperglycemic drugs: A noninferiority intensification substudy of the DURABLE trial

Background. Basal-bolus insulin therapy is the most widely accepted method of glycemic control in non-critically ill patients with T2DM. In this regimen glargine U100 is the most commonly used basal insulin. American Diabetes Association recommends either basal or basal bolus therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted in general medical and surgical ward with ideal glycemic target ranging between 140–180 mg/dL by estimating four or 6 hourly capillary blood glucose per day. Insulin glargine U300 is a second generation long acting insulin analogue, which has a prolonged pharmacokinetic /pharmacodynamic profile compared to insulin glargine U100 resulting in glucose lowering activity exceeding 24 hours. Aim. To assess the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimen (glargine U300) compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods. A prospective single centred parallel group study comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimen with basal-bolus insulin regimen. A total of 60 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted in general medical and surgical ward for elective surgery and medical emergency were randomized to either of the two regimens. The baseline glycaemic parameters were assessed by capillary blood glucose testing thrice before meal and at bedtime with a target capillary blood glucose (CBG) between 140–180 mg/dL. All pa-tients were followed up for seven days. Results. The number of CBG readings within the target range were higher in basal insulin monotherapy (glargine U300) compared to basal-bolus regimen using (glargine U100 and regular human insulin) which was statistically significant. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was lower in the basal insulin regimen. Fewer units of insulin were required in the basal insulin regimen with lower glycaemic variability as compared to basal-bolus regimen. Conclusion. Glargine U 300 monotherapy as a basal insulin is non-inferior to basal- bolus therapy in non-critically ill hospitalised patients in glycaemic control, with fewer incidences of hypoglycaemia, less amount of insulin requirement to achieve target capillary blood glucose level and lower glycaemic variability.

Safety of basal-bolus versus premixed insulin intensification regimens in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A narrative review of a 14-year experience

Management of Hyperglycemia in Diabetic Patients with Hematologic Malignancies During Dexamethasone Therapy

2194-PUB: Structured Basal-Bolus Insulin Injection in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Tertiary Teaching Hospital Experience

Spotlight commentary: A role for real-world evidence to inform the clinical care of patients with diabetes mellitus.

BackgroundThe identification of cost-effective glycaemic management strategies is critical to hospitals. Treatment with a basal-bolus insulin (BBI) regimen has been shown to result in better glycaemic control and fewer complications than sliding scale regular insulin (SSI) in general surgery patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the effect on costs is unknown.ObjectiveWe conducted a post hoc analysis of the RABBIT Surgery trial to examine whether total inpatient costs per day for general surgery patients with T2DM treated with BBI (n = 103) differed from those for patients with T2DM treated with SSI (n = 99) regimens.MethodsData were collected from patient clinical and hospital billing records. Charges were adjusted to reflect hospital costs. General linearized models were used to estimate the risk-adjusted effects of BBI versus SSI treatment on average total inpatient costs per day.ResultsRisk-adjusted average total inpatient costs per day were $US5404. Treatment with BBI compared with SSI reduced average total inpatient costs per day by $US751 (14%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 20–4). Being treated in a university medical centre, being African American or having a bowel procedure or higher-volume pharmacy use significantly reduced costs per day.ConclusionsIn general surgery patients with T2DM, a BBI regimen significantly reduced average total hospital costs per day compared with an SSI regimen. BBI has been shown to improve outcomes in a randomized controlled trial. Those results, combined with our findings regarding savings, suggest that hospitals should consider adopting BBI regimens in patients with T2DM undergoing surgery.

This study assessed insulin dose and dosing patterns required to optimize glycemic control with an insulin pump in patients with type 2 diabetes. In this 16-week, open-label, multicenter, pilot study, 56 insulin pump-naive patients treated at baseline with two or more oral antidiabetes agents (OADs), basal insulin with or without OADs, or basal-bolus insulin with or without OADs discontinued all diabetes medications except metformin and initiated insulin pump therapy. Insulin doses were adjusted to optimize glycemic control with the simplest possible insulin regimen. Outcomes included total daily insulin dose, daily basal and bolus insulin doses, number of daily basal rates, hemoglobin A1C, fasting and postprandial glucose, patient-reported outcomes and rate of hypoglycemia. After 16 weeks of pump therapy, the mean +/- SD total daily insulin dose was 95 +/- 59 U. The percentage of the total daily insulin dose used as basal and as bolus delivery was 55% and 45%, respectively. Eighty-eight percent of patients were treated with two or fewer daily basal rates. Mean A1C was lowered by 1.2 +/- 1.2% (P < 0.001), and there was no severe hypoglycemia. Mean change in body weight was +1.9 +/- 3.3 kg (P < 0.001). Overall treatment preference improved with pump therapy compared to baseline. Insulin pump therapy using a simple dosing regimen significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients experienced limited weight gain, there was no severe hypoglycemia, and overall treatment preference improved significantly.

Objective: This clinical audit focuses on identifying and describing the pattern of Sliding Scale Insulin in the management of hyperglycemia in emergencies in Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. This study matches SSI to EB-BBI to determine which of the two produces more favorable patient outcomes such as glycaemic control, incidence of hypoglycaemia, hospital stay, and mortality. Pre-intervention and post-intervention were audited to determine the best practice to embrace after the cycling accord. Methods: A total of 456 patients who developed hyperglycemia during their admission were part of the audit. A pilot survey during the first audit cycle (from 1 Dec 2023 to 29 Feb 2024) assessed the implementation of SSI versus basal-bolus insulin regimens. After applying the intervention strategies to enhance the use of basal-bolus insulin among the patients a second audit (from March 1 2024 to June 15, 2024) was conducted. Information from patient characteristics such as age, sex, insulin treatment and dose, glycemic control measures, complications, hospitalization length and mortality rate of patients were gathered and analyzed between the two cycles. Results: In the first audit cycle, 68% of patients were managed with SSI to increased risk of hypoglycemia 28% and longer hospital stay of 6.2 days compared to patients with basal bolus insulin who experienced 12% of hypoglycemia and 4.5 days of hospital stay. Interventions were used to decrease the use of SSI down to 45 %; this was accompanied by better results; for instance, incidences of hypoglycaemia were recorded at 19 % while the average length of stay in hospital was 5.4 days. The results in basal-bolus insulin regimens were more favorable, though all compared regimens had similar or slightly reduced mortality rates. Conclusion: The audit showed that basal-bolus insulin management regimens provided better and superior glycemic control and better patient outcomes than SSI in emergency hyperglycemia situations. In the first instance, implementing basal-bolus insulin posed lessons in staff development and had limited sources; nonetheless, the study established enhanced patient safety and shortened length of stay. Specifically, this audit assists to validate basal-bolus regimens as the best approach of treating hyperglycemia in emergencies.

Clinical use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is well established as add-on therapy to oral medications and basal insulin. However, there is little published data regarding the use of GLP-1 RAs for longer than 12 months in patients taking basal/bolus insulin regimens. The primary goal of our study was to assess the long-term efficacy of GLP-1 RAs as add-on therapy to basal/bolus insulin regimens. This study was a retrospective record review of all patients on basal/bolus insulin regimens who received additional therapy with a GLP-1 RA. The primary outcome was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after initiation of the GLP-1 RA. Secondary outcomes included change in weight and total daily dose (TDD) of insulin and incidence of hypoglycemia and other adverse effects (AEs). Ninety-two patient records were reviewed. Mean glycemic control changed from baseline -1.1% (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.8; P < .001) at 3 months; -1.0% (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.7; P < .001) at 6 months; -0.9% (95% CI, 1.3 to -0.6; P < .001) at 12 months; -0.9% (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.3; P = .002) at 18 months; and -0.7 (95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1; P = .07) at 24 months. A significant decrease in weight was also observed from baseline through 18 months, and a significant decrease in TDD of insulin was identified from baseline through 12 months. Hypoglycemia was documented in 29.8% of patients at any point during GLP-1 RA therapy, and gastrointestinal AEs were documented in 18.3% of patients. Adding GLP-1 RAs to complex insulin regimens may help achieve glycemic control while decreasing insulin requirements and mitigating undesirable AEs, such as weight gain.

Insulin therapy is essential for managing hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus when oral or non-insulin injectable agents are no longer effective. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of different insulin regimens remain uncertain. We aimed to compare the effects of basal, basal-bolus, biphasic and prandial insulin regimens on glycaemic management, weight, severe hypoglycaemia, insulin dose and quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through to September 2025. The inclusion criteria for studies were RCTs enrolling adults with type 2 diabetes that compared at least two of the specified insulin regimens over ≥12 weeks. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. Network meta-analyses were performed using a frequentist random-effects model, with basal insulin as the reference. Fifty-eight RCTs involving 19,122 participants were included. Compared with basal insulin, HbA1c reduction was -3.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -4.9, -1.9 mmol/mol) (-0.31% [95% CI -0.45%, -0.17%]) with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, -2.7 mmol/mol (95% CI -3.7, -1.6 mmol/mol) (-0.24% [95% CI -0.34%, -0.15%]) with biphasic insulin and -4.1 mmol/mol (95% CI -6.2, -2.1 mmol/mol) (-0.38% [95% CI -0.57%, -0.19%]) with prandial insulin. These results were classified as being of moderate confidence due to incoherence. All regimens were associated with approximately 30% increased probability of achieving HbA1c target, 1 kg greater weight gain, and a borderline increase in the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Insulin doses were slightly higher with basal-bolus and biphasic regimens. Quality-of-life data were limited. Subgroup analyses for insulin initiation and intensification yielded consistent results. Complex insulin regimens provide modest glycaemic benefits over basal insulin but are associated with greater weight gain and a suggested higher risk of hypoglycaemia. These results are based on evidence of moderate confidence. These trade-offs support the need for individualised regimen selection, informed by clinical context, patient preferences and treatment goals. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020181473. This research was supported by the Committee for the Development of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre - FIPE HCPA.

Though initiation of insulin results in a significant change in glycemic levels, treating patients without significant hypoglycemic events remains difficult in diabetes patients initiated with different insulin-based regimens. This study assessed the association of hypoglycemic incidence and glycemic control between NPH and premixed insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This was a retrospective observational study in patients with T2DM who were treated with insulin-based therapy from 2015 to 2020 at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized hospital. Average fasting blood glucose (FBG) between NPH and premixed insulin regimens was compared using an independent t-test. The Association of NPH and premixed insulin regimens with hypoglycemic incidences and glycemic control was examined by a logistic regression model. P < 0.05 was statistically significant. From 405 participants, more than half (55.3%) were males with a mean age of 59.2(±9.1) years. Baseline mean HbA1C and FBG levels were 12.73(±1.1) % and 347.7(±48.5) mg/dl, respectively. Within a one-year follow-up period of insulin initiation, the rate of hypoglycemia was 13.1%. The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in patients initiated with premixed insulin compared with NPH insulin regimens (P < 0.001). After one year of insulin initiation, HbA1C decreased from 12.7 to 7.6 and from 12.8 to 7.3% and FBG levels decreased from 347.5 to 160.7 and from 348.2 to 147.3 mg/dl following initiation of NPH and premixed insulin, respectively. Patients treated with premixed-based insulin were found more likely to achieve target FBG compared with patients treated with NPH insulin regimens after one year of initiation (P = 0.02). Premixed insulin-based regimen has found to have a higher hypoglycemic incidence, but a better level of glycemic control compared to NPH insulin-based therapy. Therefore, patients initiated with premixed insulin need to be highly vigilant and motivated to recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia.