Proactive review for people with diabetes in hospital: a cluster randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation, protocol V3.1.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes inpatient specialist services vary across the country, with limited evidence to guide service delivery. Currently, referrals to diabetes inpatient specialists are usually 'reactive' after diabetes-related events have taken place, which are associated with an increased risk of morbidity/mortality and increased length of hospital stay. We propose that a proactive diabetes review model of care, delivered by diabetes inpatient specialist nurses, may contribute to the prevention of such diabetes-related events and result in a reduction in the risk of harm. METHOD: We will conduct a cluster randomised feasibility study with process evaluation. The proactive diabetes review model (PDRM) is a complex intervention that focuses on the prevention of potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms. All eligible patients will receive a comprehensive, structured diabetes review that aims to identify and prevent potentially modifiable diabetes-related harms through utilising a standardised review structure. Reviews are undertaken by a diabetes inpatient specialist nurse within one working day of admission. This differs from usual care where patients are often only seen after diabetes-related harms have taken place. The trial duration will be approximately 32 weeks, with intervention delivery throughout. There will be an initial 8-week run-in phase, followed by a 24-week data collection phase. Eight wards will be equally randomised to either PDRM or usual care. Adult patients with a known diagnosis of diabetes admitted to an included ward will be eligible. Data collection will be limited to that typically collected as part of usual care. Data collected will include descriptive data at both the ward and patient level and glucose measures, such as frequency and results of capillary glucose testing, ketonaemia and hypoglycaemic events. The analysis aims to determine the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of a future definitive trial. Whilst this study is primarily about trial feasibility, the findings of the process evaluation may lead to changes to both trial processes and modifications to the intervention. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted in parallel to the trial. A minimum of 22 patients, nurses, doctors, and managers will be recruited with methods including direct non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The feasibility of a future definitive trial will be assessed by evaluating recruitment and randomisation processes, staffing resources and quality of available data. DISCUSSION: The aim of this cluster randomised feasibility trial with a process evaluation is to explore the feasibility of a definitive trial and identify appropriate outcome measures. If a trial is feasible and the effectiveness of PDRM can be evaluated, this could inform the future development of inpatient diabetes services nationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network, 51,167. ISRCTN, ISRCTN70402110. Registered on 21 February 2022.

Implementation of fully closed-loop insulin delivery for inpatients with diabetes: Real-world outcomes.

AIMS: Fully closed-loop insulin delivery has been shown in clinical trials to be safe and improve glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy in the inpatient setting. We investigated the feasibility of implementing the approved CamAPS HX fully closed-loop system in a hospital setting. METHODS: This implementation project was conducted in a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK. Healthcare professional training was multimodal including face-to-face workshops, online learning modules and supported by standard operating procedures. Set-up and maintenance of closed-loop devices were undertaken by the inpatient diabetes team. Selection of suitable patients was multidisciplinary and prioritised those with more challenging diabetes management. Demographic and clinical data were collected from electronic health records and diabetes data management platforms. RESULTS: In the 12 months since the closed-loop system was implemented, 32 inpatients (mean ± SD age 61 ± 16 years, 8 females, 24 males) used closed-loop insulin delivery during their admission, across medical and surgical wards in the hospital with a total of 555 days of closed-loop glucose control (median [IQR]: 14 [6, 22] days per inpatient). The time spent in target glucose range 3.9-10.0 mmol/L was 53.3 ± 18.3%. Mean glucose was 10.7 ± 1.9 mmol/L with 46.0 ± 18.2% of time spent with glucose >10.0 mmol/L. Time spent with sensor glucose below 3.9 mmol/L was low (median [IQR]: 0.38 [0.00, 0.85]). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during closed-loop use. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the fully closed-loop system can be safely and effectively implemented by a diabetes outreach team in complex medical and surgical inpatients with challenging glycaemic control.

The excess insulin requirement in severe COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis is related to the severity of respiratory failure and pre-existing diabetes.

Introduction: Severe COVID-19 has been anecdotally associated with high insulin requirements. It has been proposed that this may be driven by a direct diabetogenic effect of the virus that is unique to SARS-CoV-2, but evidence to support this is limited. To explore this, we compared insulin requirements in patients with severe COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to our intensive care unit between March and June 2020. A historical control cohort of non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis patients was identified from routinely collected audit data. Results: Insulin requirements were similar in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis after adjustment for pre-existing diabetes and severity of respiratory failure. Conclusions: In this single-centre study, we could not find evidence of a unique diabetogenic effect of COVID-19. We suggest that high insulin requirements in this disease relate to its propensity to cause severe respiratory failure in patients with pre-existing metabolic disease.

Addition of Insulin to Parenteral Nutrition for Control of Hyperglycemia.

Administration of parenteral nutrition (PN) may result in hyperglycemia in patients with preexisting diabetes or disease-related insulin resistance, and it can be associated with increased rates of complications. Treatment requires insulin therapy. Insulin can be administered subcutaneously, intravenously via a variable rate sliding scale, or by adding it directly to the PN. The last method is a potentially attractive technique for a number of reasons-it could deliver the insulin intravenously at a steady rate alongside carbohydrates, and in malnourished patients with little subcutaneous tissue, it may prevent the need for frequent insulin injections. Despite such potential advantages, the addition of insulin to PN remains controversial, largely with respect to the bioavailability of insulin in PN and resultant concerns of the risk of hypoglycemia. There is a paucity of long-term quality controlled studies to address this question. The available literature suggests that, at least in the short term, insulin addition to PN can achieve reasonable glycemic control with low rates of hypoglycemia, and the technique compares favorably with the use of long-acting insulin preparations. This literature review finds a wide range of values reported for insulin availability via PN, ranging from 44% to 95% depending on the type of PN container material used and the presence of added vitamins and trace elements. Few studies looking at glycemic control among patients receiving home PN were found, and larger prospective trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of this technique in this patient group.

Heterogeneity of glucagonomas due to differential processing of proglucagon-derived peptides.

UNLABELLED: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) secreting proglucagon are associated with phenotypic heterogeneity. Here, we describe two patients with pNETs and varied clinical phenotypes due to differential processing and secretion of proglucagon-derived peptides (PGDPs). Case 1, a 57-year-old woman presented with necrolytic migratory erythema, anorexia, constipation and hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia. She was found to have a grade 1 pNET, small bowel mucosal thickening and hyperglucagonaemia. Somatostatin analogue (SSA) therapy improved appetite, abolished hypoglycaemia and improved the rash. Case 2, a 48-year-old male presented with diabetes mellitus, diarrhoea, weight loss, nausea, vomiting and perineal rash due to a grade 1 metastatic pNET and hyperglucagonaemia. In both cases, plasma levels of all measured PGDPs were elevated and attenuated following SSA therapy. In case 1, there was increased production of intact glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and GLP-2, similar to that of the enteroendocrine L cell. In case 2, pancreatic glucagon was elevated due to a pancreatic α-cell-like proglucagon processing profile. In summary, we describe two patients with pNETs and heterogeneous clinical phenotypes due to differential processing and secretion of PGDPs. This is the first description of a patient with symptomatic hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia and marked gastrointestinal dysfunction due to, in part, a proglucagon-expressing pNET. LEARNING POINTS: PGDPs exhibit a diverse range of biological activities including critical roles in glucose and amino acid metabolism, energy homeostasis and gastrointestinal physiology.The clinical manifestations of proglucagon-expressing tumours may exhibit marked phenotypic variation due to the biochemical heterogeneity of their secreted peptide repertoire.Specific and precise biochemical assessment of individuals with proglucagon-expressing tumours may provide opportunities for improved diagnosis and clinical management.

Health care coverage and access to care: the status of Minnesota's veterans.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to examine veterans' reliance on health care services provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) within Minnesota and estimate the potential effect on uninsurance rates if all eligible veterans relied on VHA coverage. Secondary objectives were to compare veterans and nonveterans' by geographic location, demographic characteristics, health status, and health insurance coverage and to compare insured and uninsured veterans especially with regard to access to care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data are from the 2001 Minnesota Health Access Survey of a stratified random sample of more than 27,000 respondents, of whom 3,500 were self-identified veterans. Although all veterans were eligible to obtain health care services from the VHA in 2001, veterans not reporting VHA coverage and having no other source of insurance coverage were considered uninsured. Differences in weighted population characteristics are reported. Logistic regression analysis is used to identify factors associated with veterans' reliance on VHA coverage. RESULTS: Veterans represented 13.4% of the state's adult population and 9.3% of the state's uninsured nonelderly adult population in 2001. Uninsured veterans were more likely to be single, unemployed, living in rural areas, and reporting constrained access to services than insured veterans. Veterans with a non-VHA source of insurance were less reliant on VHA services. CONCLUSIONS: The state's uninsurance rate would significantly decrease if VHA capacity constraints were alleviated and veterans relied on the VHA safety net. If veterans' insurance status matters in states with low uninsurance rates, VHA coverage has broader implications for states with higher veteran concentrations and higher uninsurance rates.