Inpatient Glycemic Management Research Articles

Evaluation of a hybrid protocol using continuous glucose monitoring and point-of-care testing in non-critically ill patients in a community hospital.

Inpatient glycemic management typically involves use of point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements to inform insulin dosing decisions. This study evaluated a hybrid monitoring protocol using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) supplemented with POC testing at a community hospital. Adult inpatients receiving POC glucose testing were monitored using rtCGM in a telemetry unit. The hybrid monitoring protocol required a once-daily POC test but otherwise primarily relied on rtCGM values for insulin dosing decisions. Outcomes assessment included surveillance error grid (SEG) and Clarke Error Grid (CEG) analysis results, the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) for available rtCGM-POC value pairs before and after study protocol application, the number of POC tests avoided, and the number of hypoglycemic events involving a blood glucose value of <70 mg/dL identified by rtCGM and POC values. Data were collected from 30 inpatients (the mean age was 69.4 years, 77% were female, 80% had type 2 diabetes, and 37% were at-home insulin users). With the protocol applied, a total of 202 rtCGM-POC pairs produced a MARD of 12.5%. SEG analysis showed 2 pairs in the "moderate" risk category, with all other pairs in the "none" or "slight" risk categories. CEG analysis showed 99% of paired values to be in the clinically acceptable range. Six hypoglycemic events in 5 patients were resolved without incident. Three hundred three POC tests were avoided, a 60% reduction for the study duration. Use of a hybrid monitoring protocol of rtCGM and POC testing in a community hospital demonstrated sustained rtCGM accuracy and was found to reduce the frequency of POC testing to manage inpatient glycemia.

SAT147 A Pharmacist Driven Active Surveillance Program To Reduce Hypoglycemic Recurrences In The Inpatient Setting

Abstract Disclosure: S. Kim: None. H. Tran: None. R.Y. Gianchandani: None. Background: Hyper and hypoglycemia increase morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Glucose excursions are time sensitive and require timely response to prevent future episodes of dysglycemia. As part of a quality improvement initiative, we implemented an Active Glycemic Surveillance (AGS) program in July 2022 targeting patients with hypoglycemia (BG &amp;lt;70 mg/dL) based on a preliminary evaluation that revealed recurrent hypoglycemia was an opportunity for improvement. Pharmacist involvement in glycemic management has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in the acute care setting. Our AGS program is unique in that pharmacist trained in inpatient glycemic management is empowered to directly intervene on antihyperglycemic medication orders under scope of practice by a protocol approved through the pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Intervention: The AGS team consists of an endocrinologist and a diabetes stewardship pharmacist. A policy was developed and approved by P and T that outlines the types of interventions and orders that the diabetes stewardship pharmacist is able to make under scope of practice. These interventions include the ability to order certain labs (POCT BG, HgbA1C), and to adjust or discontinue certain anti-hyperglycemic agents Hospitalized patients who have a BG &amp;lt;70 mg/dL in the last 24 hours are reviewed by the AGS team. Chart review is performed on each patient to identify contributing factors and complicated cases are discussed with the endocrinologist prior to contacting the providers or making changes to orders. Providers are given rationale for changes as well as any other recommendations related to glycemic management. Results: During a 3 month period between August and October 2022, 848 cases of hypoglycemia were evaluated. Of these, 450 (53%) were found to be caused by an antihyperglycemic agent and 401 interventions were made by either the AGS team or other providers. The AGS team made 167 (41.6%) interventions and had a 24 h recurrence rate of 8.3% compared to 16.3% for all other providers. The most common types of interventions made by the AGS team were adjusting the insulin correction scale (78), basal insulin (57), bolus/meal insulin (16), oral medications (10), and TPN insulin (3). Conclusion: Our preliminary data show that a pharmacist-driven active surveillance program can reduce hypoglycemic recurrences. In the short time our AGS program has been implemented we have seen in increased utilization of appropriate correction scales, a decreased reliance on basal insulin or correction scale as the sole means of glycemic management, and an increase in endocrinology consultation for glycemic guidance. Future data will show the impact of this program on our overall hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia rates in future. Presentation: Saturday, June 17, 2023

Inpatient glycemic management in noncritically ill patients: Updated guidelines.

Hyperglycemia is common in hospitalized patients and is traditionally managed with scheduled and correctional doses of insulin. The authors present an overview of the latest (2022) guidelines from the Endocrine Society on inpatient hyperglycemia management in noncritically ill patients, which includes a role for newer diabetes technologies and nontraditional insulin and noninsulin therapies.

Accuracy of Point-of-Care Blood Glucometers in Neonates and Critically Ill Adults

Inpatient glycemic management has become a common issue because of the increasing number of hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia. Point-of-care devices can enable timely inpatient glucose monitoring, which may lead to better outcomes. The accuracy of point-of-care testing in various clinical scenarios has been questioned, particularly in neonates and critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the CONTOUR PLUS and CONTOUR PLUS ONE glucometers (new wireless systems that link to a smart mobile device) when used as point-of-care devices for blood glucose monitoring in neonates and critically ill adults in inpatient settings. This cross-sectional study was conducted at a medical center in central Taiwan and enrolled patients admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, sick child room, or respiratory intensive care unit between November 2020 and April 2021. Neonates with suspected infection or abnormal blood coagulation and adults who had abnormal blood coagulation, were pregnant, had received organ transplants, or had undergone massive blood transfusions were excluded. The accuracy of the glucometers was determined based on the following criteria of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard: 15197:2013. Overall, 114 neonates (mean age, 4.2 days [range, 0-28 days]; 65 boys [57.0%]) and 106 hospitalized critically ill adults (mean age, 68.2 years [range, 27-94 years]; 72 men [67.9%]) were enrolled in this study. The glucose values obtained with each glucometer had good precision, and all findings met the reference criteria of the within-lot results. All measurements of the neonates' venous blood by each glucometer met the accuracy criteria specified by ISO standard 15197:2013. Furthermore, 98.1% and 97.2% of the arterial blood glucose measurements for critically ill adults obtained with CONTOUR PLUS and CONTOUR PLUS ONE met the accuracy criteria, respectively. Both glucose management systems met the accuracy criteria for venous blood from neonates and arterial blood from critically ill adults. Thus, the use of these 2 point-of-care devices in inpatient settings, including for neonates and critically ill adults, can be recommended to minimize limitations associated with the clinical application of point-of-care testing in glucose management. The wireless connection may play a role in the subsequent development of institution-wide virtual glycemic management under the supervision of a team of endocrinologists.

Blood glucose control with different treatment regimens in type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A retrospective study.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is closely associated with hyperglycemia and a worse prognosis in patients with a previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. A few studies investigated the effects of diabetes treatment regimens in these patients during hospitalization. Here, we evaluate the impact of insulin and non-insulin therapy on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes admitted with COVID-19. This is a retrospective study including 359 COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to diabetes treatment during hospitalization. The first group included patients treated with insulin only, and the second group patients treated with other antidiabetic agents with or without insulin. Average blood glucose was higher in the insulin-only treatment group (201 ± 66 mg/dL vs 180 ± 71 mg/dL, P = .004), even after excluding mechanically ventilated patients (192 ± 69 vs 169 ± 59 mg/dL, P = .003). In patients with moderate severity of COVID-19, average blood glucose was also significantly higher in the insulin-only treated group (197 ± 76 vs 168 ± 51 mg/dL, P = .001). Most patients (80%) in the combination treatment group received metformin. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes could safely be treated with antihyperglycemic medications with or without insulin.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality. To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia. A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Harm Measures for Severe Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia: Is Your Hospital Ready?

Poor inpatient glycemic management is associated with increased lengths of stay and in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Improving inpatient glycemic outcomes can be difficult because there are no standardized benchmarks, and many hospitals lack the capacity to electronically extract and analyze glucose data. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently proposed new electronic clinical quality measures to be incorporated into its mandatory Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. Among these measures is an assessment of hospital harm from severe hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia. Hospitals must be ready to collect the necessary data for these new measures by January 2023. The new measures could bring welcome attention to the need to implement guideline-based inpatient glycemic management. However, some hospitals that serve high-risk populations may be at risk for losing funding if they are unable to comply.

Management of Hyperglycemia in the Noncritical Care Setting: A Real-World Case-Based Approach With Alternative Insulin- and Noninsulin-Based Strategies.

Insulin remains the mainstay of treatment for inpatient hyperglycemia in the United States and Canada. However, some other countries commonly use noninsulin agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas, and several trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of incretin-based agents in patients with type 2 diabetes who are admitted to noncritical care medicine and surgery services. There is a high degree of interest in alternative glucose-lowering strategies to achieve favorable glycemic outcomes with lower risks of hypoglycemia. In this case series, we highlight the challenges of inpatient glycemic management and the need for alternatives to the traditional basal-bolus insulin regimen. Additional investigation will be imperative to validate the safety and efficacy of appropriate insulin and noninsulin treatments and to further develop guidelines that are applicable in real-world hospital settings.

Instituting a Successful Discharge Plan for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Solutions.

Achieving target inpatient glycemic management outcomes has been shown to influence important clinical outcomes such as hospital length of stay and readmission rates. However, arguably the most profound, lasting impact of inpatient diabetes management is achieved at the time of discharge-namely reconciling and prescribing the right medications and making referrals for follow-up. Discharge planning offers a unique opportunity to break through therapeutic inertia, offer diabetes self-management education, and institute an individualized treatment plan that prepares the patient for discharge and promotes self-care and engagement. However, the path to a successful discharge plan can be fraught with potential pitfalls for clinicians, including lack of knowledge and experience with newer diabetes medications, costs, concerns over insurance coverage, and lack of time and resources. This article presents an algorithm to assist clinicians in selecting discharge regimens that maximize benefits and reduce barriers to self-care for patients and a framework for creating an interdisciplinary hospital diabetes discharge program.

ODP199 Full Implementation of Automated Self-Adjusting Subcutaneous Insulin Algorithm

Abstract Background - We programmed a self-adjusting subcutaneous insulin algorithm (SQIA) in the electronic medical record for patients who are NPO, on total parenteral nutrition (TPN), or on continuous tube feedings (CTF). The SQIA only requires a nurse to enter a patient's current glucose value and then calculates the next insulin dose based on previous dose, and current and previous glucoses. The SQIA titrates for a goal glucose of 120 -180 mg/dL. The advantage of this automated algorithm is that no new orders are required, even if insulin is added to TPN or tube feeding rate is changed. We previously reported results of a pilot study with 67% of blood glucoses in the 80-180 mg/dL range without any hypoglycemia (glucose &amp;lt; 60 mg/dL). Hypothesis - Following the successful pilot, the SQIA was instituted in September 2020 at our institution's three adult hospitals. We hypothesized that glucose control with the SQIA will be non-inferior to previous inpatient glycemic management and successfully maintain blood glucoses in the goal range. Methods - The SQIA was implemented on September 3, 2020 for patients who were NPO, on TPN, or on CTF. Any clinician placing insulin orders could select the SQIA as an alternate to ordering standard fixed aspart dosing or a sliding scale at four-hour intervals. We performed a prospective analysis on all patients managed with the SQIA during the first year of implementation (9/3/2020–9/2/2021) to evaluate use of the SQIA and resulting glycemic control. Results were compared to patients during the preceding one-year period (9/3/2019-9/2/2020) who were ordered for standard subcutaneous insulin aspart dosing while being NPO, on TPN, or on CTF. Results During the study period, the SQIA was utilized during 2691 time intervals within 1774 hospitalizations. The average duration for each interval was 56.4 hours and glucoses were checked every 3.9 hours while on the SQIA. Average point-of-care blood glucose while on SQIA was 157.5 ± 52.6 mg/dL. In a similar set of 1987 hospitalized patients in the preceding year who were on standard subcutaneous insulin orders, the average blood glucose was 159.4 ± 55.1 mg/dL. Conclusions - A self-adjusting SQIA effectively maintained glucose within the goal inpatient range during our first year of implementation and was non-inferior to prior glycemic control using standard dosing protocols. The SQIA provided an avenue for effective glycemic control while eliminating the need for insulin dosage titration by clinicians. Hospitals and health systems should consider pursuing similar innovations to improve the ease of inpatient glycemic control while continuing to meet glycemic targets. Presentation: No date and time listed

130-LB: Linagliptin vs. Sitagliptin for Type 2 Diabetes Inpatient Glycemic Management and Cardiovascular Outcomes—Is There a Difference between DPP-4 Inhibitors?

Background: Oral DPP-4 inhibitors provide adjunctive therapy to insulin in hospitalized patients with blood glucose (BG) &amp;lt; 400 mg/dL. Results from trials comparing sitagliptin or linagliptin to basal-bolus insulin showed mixed results, with no head-to-head comparison between sitagliptin and linagliptin. The aim of this study is to provide new evidence on their comparative efficacy and safety. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study of hospitalized general medicine and surgery adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received at least 2 doses of linagliptin or sitagliptin between January and December 2019 were assigned to either arms. Primary endpoint was the difference in mean daily BG. Secondary endpoint was a composite of 3-point major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Safety endpoints included the number of hypoglycemic events (BG &amp;lt; 70 mg/dL) and the appropriateness of dosing based on eGFR. Results: A total of 100 patients were included. The mean daily BG was similar in the linagliptin arm (167.6 ± 43.5 mg/dL) compared to the sitagliptin arm (162.1 ± 37.5 mg/dL) (p=0.5) . In a subgroup analysis, patients who received linagliptin plus correctional insulin had more BG readings within the range of 140-180 mg/dL (50% vs. 36%, p=0.2) . The composite of 3-point MACE and HF hospitalization was similar between both arms. Hypoglycemia occurred more frequently with linagliptin versus sitagliptin (4 vs. 1 event, p=0.2) . Only 70% of sitagliptin orders were appropriately dosed based on eGFR. Conclusion: There was no difference between linagliptin and sitagliptin in regards to mean daily BG and cardiovascular outcomes. However, there were numerically more BG readings within range with linagliptin. Our results favor the utilization of linagliptin in the inpatient setting considering it does not require renal dose adjustments. Disclosure S. Barakat: None. H. A. Habib: None. C. Chun: None. E. Oh: None.

196-OR: Digital Insulin Therapy Protocol in the Postoperative Period of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study

Introduction: Adequate glycemic control with intravenous insulin therapy in the postoperative period of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in an intensive care unit (ICU) reduces unfavorable clinical outcomes, such as mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), arrhythmias and nosocomial infection. After discharge from ICU, even still hospitalized, adherence to consensus on inpatient insulin therapy is low, and about 50% of patients do not receive adequate subcutaneous insulin therapy in the ward, consequently in-hospital hyperglycemia (IH) is frequent. Medical apps are increasingly facilitating the medical routine. InsulinAPP is a digital protocol for inpatient glycemic management and already validated. A 16% reduction in blood glucose (BG) has been demonstrated in clinical patients with this protocol. Method: Prospective randomized trial was performed on diabetic patients in CABG postoperative period, after discharge from ICU. The groups were randomized according to the glycemic control protocol: InsulinAPP group (APP) or protocol defined by the assistant team (ST - standard group). The aim is to compare the groups regarding the composite outcome of AKI, nosocomial infection and atrial fibrillation. Results: A total of 41 patients were evaluated (15 in APP and 26 in ST). There was no difference between APP vs. ST group in age (65.1±9.8 vs. 65.1±9.8 years), female gender (40 vs. 46%), body mass index (28.5±4.9 vs. 27.3±5.1 Kg/m2) and estimated glomerular function (68.0±24.1 vs. 69.1±24.5 mL/min, respectively). APP had better BG than ST group (162±28.6 mg/dL vs. 183±34.4 mg/dL, respectively; p = 0.036). Besides, in APP there was a significant reduction of the composite outcome (27% vs. 77%, p=0.002), infection (20% vs. 61%, p&amp;lt;0.001) and AKI (13% vs. 50%, p=0.019). Conclusion: The InsulinAPP protocol was more effective in glycemic control and in reducing unfavorable outcomes in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery after discharge from the ICU. Disclosure A. B. Camara de souza: None. M. T. Toyoshima: None.

The Financial Impact of an Inpatient Diabetes Management Service

ContextDiabetes is a leading metabolic disorder with a substantial cost burden, especially in inpatient settings. The complexity of inpatient glycemic management has led to the emergence of inpatient diabetes management service (IDMS), a multidisciplinary team approach to glycemic management.ObjectiveTo review recent literature on the financial and clinical impact of IDMS in hospital settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keyword terms to describe the concept of IDMS and combined the search terms with a comparative effectiveness filter for costs and cost analysis developed by the National Library of Medicine.FindingsIn addition to several improved clinical endpoints such as glycemic management outcomes, IDMS implementation is associated with hospital cost savings through decreased length of stay, preventing hospital readmissions, hypoglycemia reduction, and optimizing resource allocation. There are other downstream potential cost savings in long-term patient health outcomes and avoidance of litigation related to suboptimal glycemic management.ConclusionIDMS may play an important role in helping both academic and community hospitals to improve the quality of diabetes care and reduce costs. Clinicians and policymakers can utilize existing literature to build a compelling business case for IDMS to hospital administrations and state legislatures in the era of value-based healthcare.

1022-P: Efficacy of Sliding Scale Insulin for Inpatient Glycemic Control in a Multinational Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

Sliding scale insulin (SSI) continues to be widely used for glycemic management of inpatients with T2D despite condemnation in clinical guidelines. To confirm the accuracy of this clinical guideline recommendation, we determined the efficacy and safety of using SSI for the management hyperglycemia of non-critical patients with T2D in a large multinational, propensity-matched cohort study. A total of 53,516 patients with ICD 9/10 code of T2D were included in the dataset. Patients were categorized as having received SSI only vs. basal insulin, and were matched according to age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and admission blood glucose (BG). Among patients with admission BG &amp;lt;180 mg/dL treated with SSI, 69% achieved and maintained good glycemic control (mean hospital BG &amp;lt;180 mg/dl), compared to 52% of patients treated with basal insulin (p &amp;lt;.001). Patients treated with basal insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia than patients treated with SSI (30 vs. 16%, p &amp;lt;.001). There were no differences in rates of lactic acidosis, acute MI, pneumonia, or bacteremia (p=NS). A total of 14.93% of patients initially treated with SSI alone failed to achieve adequate glycemic control and were started on basal insulin during the hospital stay. Those who failed SSI had significantly higher admission BG (227.4±90 vs. 175.8±71 mg/dl), greater rates of CKD (31 vs. 24%), CHF (29 vs. 24%), CAD (35 vs. 31%), and higher Charlson score (4.3±2.7 vs. 3.8±2.7) than patients who remained well controlled on SSI alone (all, p&amp;lt;.001). Conclusion: In a multicenter, international, propensity-matched cohort study, 69% of patients with T2D with admission BG &amp;lt;180 mg/dL treated with SSI achieved good glycemic control. Patients admitted with higher BG and greater comorbidities are more likely to fail treatment with SSI alone. These data suggest that SSI may be appropriate for patients with mild/moderate hyperglycemia, thus simplifying recommendations for inpatient glycemic management. Disclosure A. Migdal: None. C. Fortin: None. Y. Guo: None. I. Hochberg: None. M.F. Magee: Consultant; Self; Mytonomy. Employee; Spouse/Partner; U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; American Diabetes Association, Pri-Med LLC. Other Relationship; Self; Endocrine Society. F.J. Pasquel: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp. Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., National Institutes of Health. G.E. Umpierrez: None. Funding Jacobs Research Foundation

Medical software applications for in-hospital insulin therapy: A systematic review.

BackgroundIn-hospital hyperglycemia (HH) is frequent and related to higher morbidity and mortality. Despite the benefits of HH treatment, glycemic control is often poor and neglected. The use of health applications to support diagnosis and therapy is now incorporated into medical practice. Medical applications for inpatient glycemic management have potential to standardize this handling by the nonspecialist physician. However, related studies are scarce. We aim to evaluate the efficacy in inpatient glycemic control parameters of medical software applications in non-critical care settings.MethodsThis systematic review on in-hospital insulin applications was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted in triplicate and methodological quality was verified. Specific outcomes of interest were glycemic control efficacy, hypoglycemia risk, length of in-hospital stay, integration with the electronic medical record and healthcare staff acceptance.ResultsAmong the 573 articles initially identified and subsequent revision of the references of each one, seven studies involving six applications were eligible for the review. A better glycemic control was reported with the use of most in-hospital insulin applications in the studies evaluated, but there was no mention of the time to reach the glycemic goal. The risk of hypoglycemia was low. Different reasons influenced the varied acceptance of the use of applications among health professionals.ConclusionThe six applications of inpatient insulin therapy in a non-critical care environment proved to be useful and safe compared to the usual management. Medical apps are tools that can help improve the quality of patient care.

Basal-Bolus Insulin Therapy for Inpatient Glycemic Management: Beyond Glycemic Control–Where do we go from Here?

National societies and consensus statements uniformly recommend basal-bolus (B-b) subcutaneous (SC) insulin therapy for adult inpatient glycemic management in the noncritical care setting and discourage or recommend against use of sliding scale insulin (SSI) alone ( 1. American Diabetes Association Diabetes care in the hospital: standards of medical care in diabetes–2019. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42: S173-S181 Crossref PubMed Scopus (116) Google Scholar ). Programmed or scheduled SC insulin has been adopted as a best practice based on accumulated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evidence demonstrating that B-b insulin therapy when compared to SSI alone leads to less hyperglycemia and reduces risk for severe hypoglycemia ( 4. Corsino L. Dhatariya K. Umpierrez G. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients. in: Feingold K.R. Anawalt B. Boyce A. Endotext &lsqb;Internet]. MDText.com, Inc., South Dartmouth (MA)2000https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279093/?report=printable Google Scholar , 5. McCullochDK, InzucchiSE.Management of diabetes mellitus in hospitalized patients. UpToDate 2019. Available at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/managment-of-diabetes-mellitus-in-hospitalized-patients. Accessed April 28, 2019. Google Scholar ). As a result, hospitals allocate considerable resources and performance improvement efforts towards implementation of B-b insulin therapy on general medicine and surgery units.

2380-PUB: Factors Associated with Successful Implementation of an Inpatient Glycemic Management Program to Improve Glucose Control for Patients Needing Subcutaneous Insulin

Deployment and maturation of computerized medical records has improved insight into the unintended variability of glucose management in hyperglycemic inpatients. We used expert panels and extensive field testing to design a Glycemic Management Program to simultaneously reduce mean glucose levels and the frequency of hypoglycemic events. Factors observed as contributing to glucose control variation included over-use of sliding scale insulin; inconsistencies in timing, type and dose of insulin; and the alignment of blood glucose testing with meal tray delivery. We designed our Glycemic Management Program to address these factors with four distinct components: 1) Change management via targeted education; 2) Standardization of the ordering process for nutrition, blood glucose monitoring frequency, and a single subcutaneous insulin order set with decision support; 3) Standardization of workflow, including the timing and coordination of glucose testing and meal tray delivery; and 4) Patient specific, customized ongoing insulin dosing recommendations through FDA-approved decision support software. We implemented our Glycemic Management Program pilot in a 325 bed community hospital in the southeastern United States. Since its launch, 2277 patients have been managed on the program. By six months post-implementation, the rate of severe hypoglycemia (&amp;lt;54mg/dL) decreased 32.2% and basal-bolus insulin usage increased 135%. Average daily glucose values decreased without increasing the rate of hypoglycemia. Decreases were observed in overall length of stay (79%), complication rate (25.3%) and ICU length of stay (60%). A comprehensive program that incorporates decision support with attention to workflow, provider engagement, and education can result in improved glucose management in an inpatient setting. Feedback has led to programmatic changes to maximize positive outcomes and ensure sustainability. Disclosure R. Freeman: None. W.E. Gay: None. T.L. Garthwaite: Advisory Panel; Self; Ondine Biomedical. L. Hollis: None. J. McCannon (Bush): None. C. Spencer-Smith: None. E.E. Samuelson: None. P. Mehta: None.

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Physician-Targeted Inpatient Glycemic Management Curriculum.

Objective:Diabetes is prevalent among hospitalized patients and there are multiple challenges to attaining glycemic control in the hospital setting. We sought to develop an inpatient glycemic management curriculum with stakeholder input and to evaluate the effectiveness of this educational program on glycemic control in hospitalized patients.Methods:Using the Six-Step Approach of Kern to Curriculum Development for Medical Education, we developed and implemented an educational curriculum for inpatient glycemic management targeted to internal medicine residents and hospitalists. We surveyed physicians (n = 73) and conducted focus group sessions (n = 18 physicians) to solicit input regarding educational deficits and desired format of the educational intervention. Based on feedback from the surveys and focus groups, we developed educational goals and objectives and a case-based curriculum, which was delivered over a 1-year period via in-person teaching sessions by 2 experienced diabetes physicians at 3 hospitals. Rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were evaluated among at-risk patient days using an interrupted time-series design.Results:We developed a mnemonic-based (SIGNAL) curriculum consisting of 10 modules, which covers key concepts of inpatient glycemic management and provides an approach to daily glycemic management: S = steroids, I = insulin, G = glucose, N = nutritional status, A = added dextrose, and L = labs. Following implementation of the curriculum, there was no difference in the rates of hyperglycemia in insulin-treated patients following the intervention; however, there was an increase in the rates of hypoglycemia defined as blood glucose (BG) ⩽ 70 mg/dL (5.6% vs 3.0%, P < .001) and clinically significant hypoglycemia defined as BG < 54 mg/dL (1.9% vs 0.8%, P = .01). There was poor penetration of the curriculum, with 60%, 20%, and 90% of the learning modules being delivered at the three participating hospitals, respectively.Conclusions:In this pilot study, a physician-targeted educational curriculum was not associated with improved glycemic control. Adapting the intervention to increase penetration and integrating the curriculum into existing clinical decision support tools may improve the effectiveness of the educational program on glycemic outcomes.

Inpatient Glycemic Management in the Setting of Renal Insufficiency/Failure/Dialysis.

Chronic diabetic nephropathy and renal dysfunction from other causes are common in hospitalized patients with diabetes. Available diabetes management guidelines aim to reduce hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, both independent risk factors for hospital outcomes. Renal dysfunction, which increases the risk of hypoglycemia, adds a layer of complexity in diabetes management. Therefore, modified glucose goals and treatment regimens may be required. Recent prospective and retrospective studies provide direction on safe insulin therapy for diabetes inpatients with renal compromise. Studies of newer diabetes pharmacotherapy provide data on oral agent use in the inpatient setting. Diabetes therapy should be modified with changing renal function. Glucose management in patients on peritoneal or hemodialysis is challenging. Reducing weight-based doses of insulin and use of newer insulins can reduce hypoglycemia risk. Safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors has been evaluated in the hospital and nursing home setting. Metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and GLP1 receptor agonists can be used in several stages of renal dysfunction prior to and at discharge.

Inpatient Glycemic Management of Non-cardiac CVD: Focus on Stroke and PVD

Hyperglycemia occurs frequently in hospitalized patients with stroke and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Guidelines for inpatient glycemic management are not well established for this patient population. We will review the clinical impact of hyperglycemia in this acute setting and review the evidence for glycemic control. Hyperglycemia in acute stroke is associated with poor short and long-term outcomes, and perioperative hyperglycemia in those undergoing revascularization for PVD is linked to increased post-surgical complications. Studies evaluating tight glucose control do not demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes, although the risk for hypoglycemia increases substantially. Additional studies are needed to evaluate tight glucose goals relative to our current standard of care and the role of permissive hyperglycemia. Given the limited data to guide glycemic management in these patient populations, it is recommended that general guidelines for inpatient glycemic control be followed. Special considerations should be made to address factors that may impact glucose management, including neurological deficits and clinical changes that occur in the postoperative state.