Dataset Information

Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen for Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 and Diabetes Mellitus: A Practical Approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has rapidly crossed international boundaries and placed increasing demands on healthcare facilities worldwide. Patients with diabetes and uncontrolled blood glucose levels are at increased risk for poor clinical outcomes and in-hospital mortality related to COVID-19. Therefore, achieving good glycaemic control is of paramount importance among hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Basal-bolus insulin therapy is a safe and effective intervention for the management of hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients. The aim of this article is to provide a practical guidance for the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus.

Methods

This guidance document was formulated based on the review of available literature and the combined personal experiences of the authors. We provide a comprehensive review on the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen, including its principles, rationale, indications, prerequisites, initiation, and dose titration, and also suggest targets for blood glucose control and different levels of capillary blood glucose monitoring. Various case scenarios are used to illustrate how optimal glucose control can be achieved, such as through adjustments in doses of prandial and basal insulin, the use of correctional insulin dosing and changes in the timing and content of major and minor meals.

Conclusion

The practical guidance for the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus presented here can be used for patients admitted to hospital for indications other than COVID-19 and for those in ambulatory care.

SUBMITTER: Attri B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7368619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo date, there have been few head-to-head comparisons between semaglutide once-weekly (OW) and short-acting meal-time insulin in participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin and requiring treatment intensification. This indirect comparison evaluated the effects of these regimens on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycaemia, and other clinically relevant outcomes.MethodsA post-hoc, unanchored, individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of data from single treatment arms in the SUSTAIN 5 and DUAL 7 trials. Semaglutide 0.5 mg OW and 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin were compared with an optimised (treat-to-target) basal-bolus regimen of insulin glargine and insulin aspart over 26 weeks, using regression adjustment to account for baseline differences between the trials.ResultsOver 26 weeks, semaglutide 1.0 mg OW plus basal insulin reduced mean HbA1c by significantly more than the basal-bolus regimen (treatment difference: - 0.36%; p = 0.003), while semaglutide 0.5 mg OW plus basal insulin was comparable with basal-bolus insulin (treatment difference: 0.08%, p = 0.53). Both doses of semaglutide were associated with significant weight loss relative to insulin intensification (treatment differences: 6.8-9.4 kg; p < 0.001). At both doses, semaglutide intensification required less basal insulin per day than bolus intensification, and more participants on semaglutide met HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and ≤ 6.5% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain (odds ratio [OR] for < 7.0%, 21.9; OR for ≤ 6.5%, 16.2; both p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn T2D uncontrolled by basal insulin, intensification with semaglutide 1.0 mg OW was associated with better glycaemic control, weight loss, and reduced hypoglycaemia versus a basal-bolus regimen, while limiting the treatment burden associated with frequent injections. Clinicians could consider treatment intensification with semaglutide when T2D is uncontrolled by basal insulin, especially when weight management is a priority. Effective glycaemic control coupled with weight management can alleviate the burden of diabetes-associated complications.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of 3 insulin analogue regimens on change in carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN AND SETTING:Investigator-initiated, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design, conducted at 8 hospitals in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Participants with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ? 7.5% (? 58 mmol/mol), body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) were, in addition to metformin versus placebo, randomised to 18 months open-label biphasic insulin aspart 1-3 times daily (n=137) versus insulin aspart 3 times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n=138) versus insulin detemir alone once daily (n=137), aiming at HbA1c ? 7.0% (? 53 mmol/mol). OUTCOMES:Primary outcome was change in mean carotid IMT (a marker of subclinical cardiovascular disease). HbA1c, insulin dose, weight, and hypoglycaemic and serious adverse events were other prespecified outcomes. RESULTS:Carotid IMT change did not differ between groups (biphasic -0.009 mm (95% CI -0.022 to 0.004), aspart+detemir 0.000 mm (95% CI -0.013 to 0.013), detemir -0.012 mm (95% CI -0.025 to 0.000)). HbA1c was more reduced with biphasic (-1.0% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.8)) compared with the aspart+detemir (-0.4% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.3)) and detemir (-0.3% (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1)) groups (p<0.001). Weight gain was higher in the biphasic (3.3 kg (95% CI 2.7 to 4.0) and aspart+detemir (3.2 kg (95% CI 2.6 to 3.9)) compared with the detemir group (1.9 kg (95% CI 1.3 to 2.6)). Insulin dose was higher with detemir (1.6 IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8)) compared with biphasic (1.0 IU/kg/day (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1)) and aspart+detemir (1.1?IU/kg/day (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)) (p<0.001). Number of participants with severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events did not differ. CONCLUSIONS:Carotid IMT change did not differ between 3 insulin regimens despite differences in HbA1c, weight gain and insulin doses. The trial only reached 46% of planned sample size and lack of power may therefore have affected our results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00657943.