Cited by 7Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Novel automated self-adjusting subcutaneous insulin algorithm improves glycemic control and physician efficiency in hospitalized patients

Open access
Mehta, Paras B., Kohn, Michael A., Rov-Ikpah, Esther, San Luis, Craig, Johnson, Craig, Lee, Gwendolyn, Koliwad, Suneil, Rushakoff, Robert J.·2024·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: Hyperglycemia occurs in 22% to 46% of hospitalized patients, negatively affecting patient outcomes, including mortality, inpatient complications, length of stay, and hospital costs. Achieving inpatient glycemic control is challenging due to inconsistent caloric intake, changes from home medications, a catabolic state in the setting of acute illness, consequences of acute inflammation, intercurrent infection, and limitations in labor-intensive glucose monitoring and insulin administration. Method: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis at the University of California San Francisco hospitals between September 3, 2020 and September 2, 2021, comparing point-of-care glucose measurements in patients on nil per os (NPO), continuous total parenteral nutrition, or continuous tube feeding assigned to our novel automated self-adjusting subcutaneous insulin algorithm (SQIA) or conventional, physician-driven insulin dosing. We also evaluated physician efficiency by tracking the number of insulin orders placed or modified. Results: The proportion of glucose in range (70-180 mg/dL) was higher in the SQIA group than in the conventional group (71.0% vs 69.0%, P = .153). The SQIA led to a lower proportion of severe hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL; 5.8% vs 7.2%, P = .017), hypoglycemia (54-69 mg/dL; 0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .029), and severe hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL; 0.3% vs 0.5%, P = .076) events. The number of orders a physician had to place while a patient was on the SQIA was reduced by a factor of more than 12, when compared with while a patient was on conventional insulin dosing. Conclusions: The SQIA reduced severe hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia compared with conventional insulin dosing. It also improved physician efficiency by reducing the number of order modifications a physician had to place.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/19322968241232673

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An automated self-adjusting insulin algorithm was shown to be safe and effective in controlling hyperglycemia in hospitalized individuals receiving enteral nutrition or total parenteral nutrition.

    “An automated self-adjusting insulin algorithm was shown to be safe and effective in controlling hyperglycemia in hospitalized individuals receiving enteral nutrition or total parenteral nutrition (122).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 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(3):978-982.
  2. Falciglia M. Causes and consequences of hyperglycemia in crit- ical illness. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007;10(4):498- 503.
  3. Umpierrez GE, Hellman R, Korytkowski MT, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in noncritical care setting: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(1):16-38.
  4. Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Zisman A, et al. Randomized study of basal-bolus insulin therapy in the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes (RABBIT 2 trial). Diabetes Care. 2007;30(9):2181-2186.
  5. Bo S, Ciccone G, Grassi G, et al. Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of hospitalization than the general population. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(11):1196-1201.
  6. De Berardis G, D'Ettorre A, Graziano G, et al. The burden of hospitalization related to diabetes mellitus: a population-based study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2012;22(7):605-612.
  7. Kufeldt J, Kovarova M, Adolph M, et al. Prevalence and distri- bution of diabetes mellitus in a maximum care hospital: urgent need for HbA1c-screening. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2018;126(2):123-129.
  8. Turchin A, Matheny ME, Shubina M, Scanlon JV, Greenwood B, Pendergrass ML. Hypoglycemia and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes hospitalized in the general ward. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1153-1157.
  9. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators; Finfer S, Liu B, Chittock DR, et al. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1108-1118.
  10. Yamada T, Shojima N, Noma H, Yamauchi T, Kadowaki T. Glycemic control, mortality, and hypoglycemia in criti- cally ill patients: a systematic review and network meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(1):1-15.
  11. Levy N, Hall GM. National guidance contributes to the high incidence of inpatient hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2019;36(1):120-121.
  12. Magaji V, Johnston JM. Inpatient management of hyperglyce- mia and diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2011;29(1):3-9.
  13. Gosmanov AR, Umpierrez GE. Management of hyperglycemia during enteral and parenteral nutrition therapy. Curr Diab Rep. 2013;13(1):155-162.
  14. Umpierrez GE. Basal versus sliding-scale regular insulin in hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia during enteral nutri- tion therapy. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(4):751-753.
  15. Knecht LA, Gauthier SM, Castro JC, et al. Diabetes care in the hospital: is there clinical inertia? J Hosp Med. 2006;1(3):151- 160.
  16. Cook CB, Castro JC, Schmidt RE, et al. Diabetes care in hos- pitalized noncritically ill patients: more evidence for clini- cal inertia and negative therapeutic momentum. J Hosp Med. 2007;2(4):203-211.
  17. Coan KE, Schlinkert AB, Beck BR, et al. Clinical inertia during postoperative management of diabetes mellitus: relationship between hyperglycemia and insulin therapy intensification. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):880-887.
  18. Kim S, Rushakoff RJ, Sullivan M, Windham H. Hyperglycemia control of the nil per os patient in the intensive care unit: intro- duction of a simple subcutaneous insulin algorithm. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(6):1413-1419. https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm- nih-gov.ucsf.idm.oclc.org/23294788/. Accessed August 6, 2023.
  19. Pezzarossa A, Taddei F, Cimicchi MC, et al. Perioperative man- agement of diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care. 1988;11(1):52- 58.
  20. Patzek S, MacMaster HW, Rov-Ikpah E, et al. Automated self-adjusting subcutaneous insulin algorithm for patients NPO or on TPN or enteral feedings. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(6):1282-1289.
  21. Weinberg ME, Bacchetti P, Rushakoff RJ. Frequently repeated glucose measurements overestimate the incidence of inpa- tient hypoglycemia and severe hyperglycemia. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):577-582.
  22. Bowen ME, Rumana U, Killgore EA, Gong Y. A user-centered glucose-insulin data display for the inpatient setting. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:684-688.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehta, P. B., Kohn, M. A., Rov-Ikpah, E., San Luis, C., Johnson, C., Lee, G., Koliwad, S., & Rushakoff, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Department of Clinical Systems, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
Corresponding author
Rushakoff, Robert J.
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2024-03-07
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
541-548
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392591352
Cited by
7
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 1
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
subcutaneous insulin, inpatient glycemic control, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, hospitalized patients, physician efficiency, total parenteral nutrition, tube feeding, nil per os, point-of-care glucose monitoring
MeSH terms
Glycemic Control, Aged, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review