Many institutions rely on a systematic analysis of their glucose measurements to address these problems. Sometimes referred to as “glucometrics,” this approach incorporates the tracking of glycemic exposure, the efficacy of glycemic control, and the rates of adverse events and allows hospitals to measure the success of inpatient glucose management efforts. Individual health-care professionals can use glucometrics to identify and address the causes of hyper- and hypoglycemia. Institutions can use these metrics to identify opportunities for improvement in glycemic management across the health system. A goal of 85% of blood glucose levels within the target range has been proposed as a gold standard, and some groups recommend use of the patient-day unit of measure, because it may more accurately reflect the frequency of hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemic events. Glucometric approaches have not been standardized, however, and various methods continue to be implemented. Of course, merely tracking glycemic values does not appear to improve outcomes.35 The data obtained must be used to guide the actions of health-care professionals across disciplines10,11,36 and to advise institutions to make strategic decisions regarding support staff, protocol development, and practitioner education.
Emerging Evidence to Control Glucose in the Inpatient Setting
Recent interest has focused on the potential of incretin-based therapies as a supplement or alternative to insulin therapy in the hospital setting. These agents carry a low risk of hypoglycemia and may offer cardioprotective benefits.37 One pilot study involving 90 patients randomly assigned general medical and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes to glucose management with the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin alone, sitagliptin plus insulin glargine, or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Overall, the three treatment groups experienced similar glycemic control, although basal-bolus insulin provided better control in patients whose admission glucose was >180 mg/dL.38 In addition, patients in the sitagliptin-only group required correction doses with rapid-acting insulin as often as patients in the other groups to maintain target glucose levels. Rates of hypoglycemia were also similar among the three groups.
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for inpatient management have shown some potential to control glucocorticoid-induced and stress hyperglycemia in several small studies, but so far no randomized, controlled trials have been conducted.37 In one pilot study involving 40 patients in a cardiac ICU, exenatide infusion successfully maintained a steady-state glucose value of 132 mg/dL without incidence of hypoglycemia; however, a large proportion of patients experienced nausea.39
Areas for future research include investigations of the following:
1. Glycemic quality measures needed to improve patient outcomes
2. Safe and effective methods of point-of-care testing for the management of glycemia in critically ill patients
3. The role of continuous glucose monitoring in the inpatient setting
4. Appropriate glycemic targets for different patient populations in the hospital setting
5. Efficacy and safety of incretin-based therapies in the management of hyperglycemia in the hospital setting
Conclusion
Management of glycemic control in the hospital setting continues to evolve. We have witnessed several shifts in treatment paradigms over the past two decades, from essentially ignoring blood glucose levels except for extremes, to overly stringent approaches stemming from initial clinical trials that reported benefits from achieving euglycemia, to a more rational approach over the past several years. Professional organizations and leading experts now advise controlling glucose, especially in the ICU, within the high-normal to mildly elevated range, while avoiding hypoglycemia. The overriding primary goal of treating hyperglycemia among hospital inpatients is now patient safety, because overtreatment and undertreatment of hyperglycemia are associated with adverse outcomes. Any validated protocols for the management of hyperglycemia should include provisions for glucose monitoring and the treatment of hypoglycemia as well as guidance on dynamically matching insulin doses to glucose levels. Smooth transitioning between IV and SQ insulin regimens is also important. Discharge planning, which should begin at hospital admission, is equally vital. A clear plan for outpatient glucose management, including transition to previous antihyperglycemic therapy before discharge, patient education about diabetes self-management, and clear communication with outpatient providers, will ensure a safe and successful transition to the outpatient arena. Developing reliable diabetes management systems in our hospitals, developed and tracked by a multidisciplinary group of key stakeholders, will ensure best practice in each of these domains.
References
1. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, Verwaest C, Bruyninckx F, Schetz M, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1359–1367
2. American College of Endocrinology, American Diabetes Association. American College of Endocrinology and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient diabetes and glycemic control. Endocr Pract 2006;12:458–468
3. Garber AJ, Moghissi ES, Bransome ED, Jr., Clark NG, Clement S, Cobin RH, et al. American College of Endocrinology position statement on inpatient diabetes and metabolic control. Endocr Pract 2004;10:77–82
4. Clement S, Braithwaite SS, Magee MF, Ahmann A, Smith EP, Schafer RG, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Care 2004;27:553–591
5. Wiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:933–944
6. Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, Meier-Hellmann A, Ragaller M, Weiler N, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2008;358:125–139
7. Krinsley JS, Grover A. Severe hypoglycemia in critically ill patients: risk factors and outcomes. Crit Care Med 2007;35:2262–2267
8. Griesdale DE, de Souza RJ, van Dam RM, Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Malhotra A, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data. CMAJ 2009;180:821–827
9. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1283–1297
10. Moghissi ES, Korytkowski MT, DiNardo M, Einhorn D, Hellman R, Hirsch IB, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control. Endocr Pract 2009;15:353–369
11. Umpierrez GE, Hellman R, Korytkowski MT, Kosiborod M, Maynard GA, Montori VM, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in non-critical care setting: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:16–38
12. Kosiborod M, Rathore SS, Inzucchi SE, Masoudi FA, Wang Y, Havranek EP, et al. Admission glucose and mortality in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: implications for patients with and without recognized diabetes. Circulation 2005;111:3078–3086
13. Swanson CM, Potter DJ, Kongable GL, Cook CB. Update on inpatient glycemic control in hospitals in the United States. Endocr Pract 2011;17:853–861
14. Umpierrez GE, Isaacs SD, Bazargan N, You X, Thaler LM, Kitabchi AE. Hyperglycemia: an independent marker of in-hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:978–982
15. Dungan KM, Braithwaite SS, Preiser JC. Stress hyperglycaemia. Lancet 2009;373:1798–1807
16. Malmberg K, Norhammar A, Wedel H, Ryden L. Glycometabolic state at admission: important risk marker of mortality in conventionally treated patients with diabetes