Feasibility of Multiparametric Perfusion Assessment in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Blood Oxygenation-Level Dependent MRI.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM) are at increased risk of developing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) and experiencing impaired wound healing related to underlying microvascular disease. PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of intra-voxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) MRI to microvascular changes in patients with DFUs. STUDY TYPE: Case-control. POPULATION: 20 volunteers who were age and body mass index matched, including T2DM patients with DFUs (N = 10, mean age = 57.5 years), T2DM patients with controlled glycemia and without DFUs (DC, N = 5, mean age = 57.4 years) and healthy controls (HC, N = 5, mean age = 52.8 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T/multi-b-value IVIM and dynamic BOLD. ASSESSMENT: Resting IVIM parameters were obtained using a multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging sequence and two IVIM models were fit to obtain diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and microvascular volume fraction (MVF) parameters. Microvascular reactivity was evaluated by inducing an ischemic state in the foot with a blood pressure cuff during dynamic BOLD imaging. Perfusion indices were assessed in two regions of the foot: the medial plantar (MP) and lateral plantar (LP) regions. STATISTICAL TESTS: Effect sizes of group mean differences were assessed using Hedge's g adjusted for small sample sizes. RESULTS: DFU participants exhibited elevated D*, f, and MVF values in both regions (g ≥ 1.10) and increased D (g = 1.07) in the MP region compared to DC participants. DC participants showed reduced f and MVF compared to HC participants in the MP region (g ≥ 1.06). Finally, the DFU group showed reduced tolerance for ischemia in the LP region (g = -1.51) and blunted reperfusion response in both regions (g < -2.32) compared to the DC group during the cuff-occlusion challenge. DATA CONCLUSION: The combined use of IVIM and BOLD MRI shows promise in differentiating perfusion abnormalities in the feet of diabetic patients and suggests hyperperfusion in DFU patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in an Uninsured and Underinsured Cohort.

Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually treated with prolonged outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Evaluation and treatment of non-antibiotic aspects of DFO (e.g., peripheral artery disease [PAD]) are also recommended. There is limited data regarding OPAT practice patterns and outcomes for DFO. Methods: Single-center observational study of patients receiving OPAT for DFO in a large United States public hospital between January 2017 and July 2019. We abstracted data regarding microbiology test, antibiotics, clinical outcomes, and non-antibiotic DFO management. Results: Ninety-six patients were included and some had >1 DFO-OPAT course during the study period (106 DFO-OPAT courses included). No culture was obtained in 40 (38%) of courses. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) was cultured in 15 (14%) and P. aeruginosa in 1 (1%) of DFO-OPAT courses. An antibiotic with MRSA activity (vancomycin or daptomycin) was used in 79 (75%) of courses and a parenteral antibiotic with anti-pseudomonal activity was used in 7 (6%) of courses. Acute kidney injury occurred in 19 (18%) DFO-OPAT courses. An ankle-brachial index measurement was obtained during or 6 months prior to the first DFO-OPAT course for 44 (49%) of patients. Forty-two (44%) patients died or had an amputation within 12 months of their initial hospital discharge. Conclusions: We found high rates of empiric antibiotic therapy for DFO and low uptake of the non-antibiotic aspects of DFO care. Better implementation of microbiological tests for DFO in addition to stronger integration of infectious disease and non-infectious diseases care could improve DFO outcomes.

Degludec hospital trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing insulin degludec U100 and glargine U100 for the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Limited data exist about the use of insulin degludec in the hospital. This multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, prospective randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec-U100 and glargine-U100 for the management of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In total, 180 general medical and surgical patients with an admission blood glucose (BG) between 7.8 and 22.2 mmol/L, treated with oral agents or insulin before hospitalization were randomly allocated (1:1) to a basal-bolus regimen using degludec (n = 92) or glargine (n = 88), as basal and aspart before meals. Insulin dose was adjusted daily to a target BG between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean hospital daily BG between groups. RESULTS: Overall, the randomization BG was 12.2 ± 2.9 mmol/L and glycated haemoglobin 84 mmol/mol (9.8% ± 2.0%). There were no differences in mean daily BG (10.0 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 mmol/L, p = .9), proportion of BG in target range (54·5% ± 29% vs. 55·3% ± 28%, p = .85), basal insulin (29.6 ± 13 vs. 30.4 ± 18 units/day, p = .85), length of stay [median (IQR): 6.7 (4.7-10.5) vs. 7.5 (4.7-11.6) days, p = .61], hospital complications (23% vs. 23%, p = .95) between treatment groups. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with BG <3.9 mmol/L (17% vs. 19%, p = .75) or <3.0 mmol/L (3.7% vs. 1.3%, p = .62) between degludec and glargine. CONCLUSION: Hospital treatment with degludec-U100 or glargine-U100 is equally safe and effective for the management of hyperglycaemia in general medical and surgical patients with type 2 diabetes.

Liraglutide hospital discharge trial: A randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of liraglutide versus insulin glargine for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes after hospital discharge.

AIM: To compare a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with basal insulin at hospital discharge in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 273 patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7%-10% (53-86 mol/mol) were randomized to liraglutide (n = 136) or insulin glargine (n = 137) at hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA1c at 12 and 26 weeks. Secondary endpoints included hypoglycaemia, changes in body weight, and achievement of HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia or weight gain. RESULTS: The between-group difference in HbA1c at 12 weeks and 26 weeks was -0.28% (95% CI -0.64, 0.09), and at 26 weeks it was -0.55%, (95% CI -1.01, -0.09) in favour of liraglutide. Liraglutide treatment resulted in a lower frequency of hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (13% vs 23%; P = 0.04), but there was no difference in the rate of clinically significant hypoglycaemia <3.0 mmol/L. Compared to insulin glargine, liraglutide treatment was associated with greater weight loss at 26 weeks (-4.7 ± 7.7 kg vs -0.6 ± 11.5 kg; P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia was 48% versus 33% (P = 0.05) at 12 weeks and 45% versus 33% (P = 0.14) at 26 weeks in liraglutide versus insulin glargine. The proportion of patients with HbA1c <7% (53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycaemia and no weight gain was higher with liraglutide at 12 (41% vs 24%, P = 0.005) and 26 weeks (39% vs 22%; P = 0.014). The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher with liraglutide than with insulin glargine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to insulin glargine, treatment with liraglutide at hospital discharge resulted in better glycaemic control and greater weight loss, but increased gastrointestinal adverse events.

Sitagliptin for the prevention and treatment of perioperative hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To assess whether treatment with sitagliptin, starting before surgery and continued during the hospital stay, can prevent and reduce the severity of perioperative hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in adults with type 2 diabetes randomly assigned to receive sitagliptin or matching placebo starting 1 day prior to surgery and continued during the hospital stay. The primary outcome was difference in the proportion of patients with postoperative hyperglycaemia (blood glucose [BG] > 10 mmol/L [>180 mg/dL]) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Secondary endpoints included differences in mean daily BG in the ICU and after transition to regular wards, hypoglycaemia, hospital complications, length of stay and need of insulin therapy. RESULTS: We included 182 participants randomized to receive sitagliptin or placebo (91 per group, age 64 ± 9 years, HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.5% and diabetes duration 10 ± 9 years). There were no differences in the number of patients with postoperative BG greater than 10 mmol/L, mean daily BG in the ICU or after transition to regular wards, hypoglycaemia, hospital complications or length of stay. There were no differences in insulin requirements in the ICU; however, sitagliptin therapy was associated with lower mean daily insulin requirements (21.1 ± 18.4 vs. 32.5 ± 26.3 units, P = .007) after transition to a regular ward compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: The administration of sitagliptin prior to surgery and during the hospital stay did not prevent perioperative hyperglycaemia or complications after CABG. Sitagliptin therapy was associated with lower mean daily insulin requirements after transition to regular wards.

Safety And Efficacy Of Dpp-4 Inhibitors For The Management Of Hospitalized General Medicine And Surgery Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have been shown to be effective for the management of inpatient diabetes. We report pooled data from 3 prospective studies using DPP-4i in general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: We combined data from 3 randomized studies comparing DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Medicine (n = 266) and surgery (n = 319) patients admitted with a blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated with diet, oral agents, or low-dose insulin therapy were included. Patients received DPP-4i alone (n = 144), DPP-4i plus basal insulin (n = 158) or basal-bolus regimen (n = 283). All groups received correctional doses with rapid-acting insulin for BG >140 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was differences in mean daily BG between groups. Secondary endpoints included differences in hypoglycemia and hospital complications. RESULTS: There were no differences in mean hospital daily BG among patients treated with DPP-4i alone (170 ± 37 mg/dL), DPP-4i plus basal (172 ± 42 mg/dL), or basalbolus (172 ± 43 mg/dL), P = .94; or in the percentage of BG readings within target of 70 to 180 mg/dL (63 ± 32%, 60 ± 31%, and 64 ± 28%, respectively; P = .42). There were no differences in length of stay or complications, but hypoglycemia was less common with DPP-4i alone (2%) compared to DPP-4i plus basal (9%) and basal-bolus (10%); P = .004. CONCLUSION: Treatment with DPP-4i alone or in combination with basal insulin is effective and results in a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D. ABBREVIATIONS: BG = blood glucose; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DPP-4i = dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; OR = odds ratio; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Debate on Insulin vs Non-insulin Use in the Hospital Setting-Is It Time to Revise the Guidelines for the Management of Inpatient Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hyperglycemia contributes to a significant increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs in the hospital. Professional associations recommend insulin as the mainstay of diabetes therapy in the inpatient setting. The standard of care basal-bolus insulin regimen is a labor-intensive approach associated with a significant risk of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. This review summarizes recent evidence from observational studies and clinical trials suggesting that not all patients require treatment with complex insulin regimens. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence from clinical trials shows that incretin-based agents are effective in appropriately selected hospitalized patients and may be a safe alternative to complicated insulin regimens. Observational studies also show that older agents (i.e., metformin and sulfonylureas) are commonly used in the hospital, but there are few carefully designed studies addressing their efficacy. Therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, alone or in combination with basal insulin, may effectively control glucose levels in patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. Further studies with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor analogs and older oral agents are needed to confirm their safety in the hospital.

Obesity, Motility, Diet, and Intestinal Microbiota-Connecting the Dots.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of the present review is to explore the relationship between dietary changes and alterations in gut microbiota that contribute to disorders of gut motility and obesity. RECENT FINDINGS: We review the microbiota changes that are seen in obesity, diarrhea, and constipation and look at potential mechanisms of how dysbiosis can predispose to these. We find that microbial metabolites, particularly short chain fatty acids, can lead to signaling changes in the host enterocytes. Microbial alteration leading to both motility disorders and obesity may be mediated by the release of hormones including glucagon-like peptides 1 and 2 (GLP-1, GLP-2) and polypeptide YY (PYY). These pathways provide avenues for microbiota-targeted interventions that can treat both disorders of motility and obesity. In summary, multiple mechanisms contribute to the interplay between the microbial dysbiosis, obesity, and dysmotility.

COMPARISON OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF GLARGINE AND DETEMIR INSULIN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INPATIENT HYPERGLYCEMIA AND DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: Glargine and detemir insulin are the two most commonly prescribed basal insulin analogues for the ambulatory and inpatient management of diabetes. The efficacy and safety of basal insulin analogues in the hospital setting has not been established. METHODS: This observational study compared differences in glycemic control and outcomes in non-intensive care unit patients with blood glucose (BG) >140 mg/dL who were treated with glargine or detemir, between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015, in two academic centers. RESULTS: Among 6,245 medical and surgical patients with hyperglycemia, 5,749 received one or more doses of glargine, and 496 patients received detemir during the hospital stay. There were no differences in the mean daily BG (glargine, 182 ± 46 mg/dL vs. detemir, 180 ± 44 mg/dL; P = .70). There were no differences in mortality, hospital complications, or re-admissions between groups (all, P>.05). After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no statistically significant difference in hypoglycemia rates between treatment groups. Patients treated with detemir required higher total daily basal insulin doses (0.27 ± 0.16 units/kg/day vs. 0.22 ± 0.15 units/kg/day; P<.001). Glargine-treated patients had statistically longer length of stay; however, this difference may not be clinically relevant (6.8 ± 7.4 days vs. 6.0 ± 6.3 days; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that treatment with glargine and detemir results in similar inpatient glycemic control in general medicine and surgery patients. Detemir treatment was associated with higher daily basal insulin dose and number of injections. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm these findings. ABBREVIATIONS: BG = blood glucose BMI = body mass index CI = confidence interval eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision ICU = intensive care unit IQR = interquartile range LOS = length-of-stay OR = odd ratio.

Assessment of Glycemic Control by Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Hemoglobin A1c, Fructosamine, and Glycated Albumin in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease and Burnt-Out Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may experience "burnt-out diabetes," defined as having an HbA1c value <6.5% without antidiabetic therapy for >6 months. We aim to assess glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6 CGM) metrics and glycemic markers in ESKD patients on hemodialysis with burnt-out diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this pilot prospective study, glycemic control was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), HbA1c measures, and glycated albumin and fructosamine measurements in patients with burnt-out diabetes (n = 20) and without a history of diabetes (n = 20). RESULTS: Patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher CGM-measured daily glucose levels, lower percent time in the range 70-180 mg/dL, higher percent time above range (>250 mg/dL), and longer duration of hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL (hours/day) compared with patients without diabetes (all P < 0.01). HbA1c and fructosamine levels were similar; however, patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher levels of glycated albumin than did patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CGM demonstrated that patients with burnt-out diabetes have significant undiagnosed hyperglycemia. CGM and glycated albumin provide better assessment of glycemic control than do values of HbA1c and fructosamine in patients with ESKD.

Using the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities framework to better understand disparities in major amputations.

Recently, the United States experienced its first resurgence of major amputations in more than 20 years. Compounding this rise is a longstanding history of disparities. Patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black are twice as likely to lose a limb as those identifying as non-Hispanic White. Those identifying as Latino face a 30% increase. Rural patients are also more likely to undergo major amputations, and the rural-urban disparity is widening. We used the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities framework to better understand these disparities and identify common factors contributing to them. Common factors were abundant and included increased prevalence of diabetes, possible lower rates of foot self-care, transportation barriers to medical appointments, living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and lack of insurance. Solutions within and outside the health care realm are needed. Health care-specific interventions that embed preventative and ambulatory care services within communities may be particularly high yield.

Intelligent Care Management for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Scoping Review of Computer Vision and Machine Learning Techniques and Applications.

Ten percent of adults in the United States have a diagnosis of diabetes and up to a third of these individuals will develop a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) in their lifetime. Of those who develop a DFU, a fifth will ultimately require amputation with a mortality rate of up to 70% within five years. The human suffering, economic burden, and disproportionate impact of diabetes on communities of color has led to increasing interest in the use of computer vision (CV) and machine learning (ML) techniques to aid the detection, characterization, monitoring, and even prediction of DFUs. Remote monitoring and automated classification are expected to revolutionize wound care by allowing patients to self-monitor their wound pathology, assist in the remote triaging of patients by clinicians, and allow for more immediate interventions when necessary. This scoping review provides an overview of applicable CV and ML techniques. This includes automated CV methods developed for remote assessment of wound photographs, as well as predictive ML algorithms that leverage heterogeneous data streams. We discuss the benefits of such applications and the role they may play in diabetic foot care moving forward. We highlight both the need for, and possibilities of, computational sensing systems to improve diabetic foot care and bring greater knowledge to patients in need.

Microbiome differences related to metformin intolerance among Black individuals with diabetes, a pilot cross-sectional study.

Aims: Metformin is the broadly accepted the first-line medication for diabetes. Its use, however, is limited by gastrointestinal side effects present in approximately 25% of patients. This study aimed to better understand the interplay between metformin intolerance and gut microbiota among Black individuals with diabetes. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study among 29 Black individuals living with diabetes with or without metformin intolerance. Participants with mean age 59±11, 58% female, were stratified into three groups: 1)intolerant: metformin intolerance in the past, not on metformin; 2)partially intolerant: mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms, currently taking metformin 3)tolerant: using metformin without symptoms. We collected and analyzed rectal swabs and analyzed microbiota composition using V3-V4 regions of the 16s rRNA. Results: Metformin intolerant subjects trended towards having greatest alpha diversity, followed by tolerant and partially tolerant (Intolerant:4.9; Tolerant:4.2; Partially tolerant:3.9). Mean difference in alpha diversity for intolerant versus partially tolerant was 1.0 (95% CI-0.1,2.1) and intolerant versus tolerant were 0.7 (95% CI -0.4,1.8). Conclusion: This was the first study to evaluate the role of microbiota and metformin intolerance among Black individuals. We report on differences in alpha diversity as well as microbiota composition.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of IDegLira Versus Basal-Bolus in Patients With Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes and Very High HbA1c ≥9-15%: DUAL HIGH Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and HbA1c >9.0-10.0%, guidelines recommend treatment with basal-bolus insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus among participants with high HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, previously treated with 2 or 3 oral agents and/or basal insulin, allocated (1:1) to basal-bolus (n = 73) or IDegLira (n = 72). The primary end point was noninferiority (0.4%) in HbA1c reduction between groups. RESULTS: Among 145 participants (HbA1c 10.8% ± 1.3), there was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c reduction (3.18% ± 2.29 vs. 3.00% ± 1.79, P = 0.65; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18%, 95% CI -0.59, 0.94) between the IDegLira and basal-bolus groups. IDegLira resulted in significantly lower rates of hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (26% vs. 48%, P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19, 0.78), and less weight gain (1.24 ± 8.33 vs. 5.84 ± 6.18 kg, P = 0.001; ETD -4.60, 95% CI -7.33, -1.87). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with T2D and HbA1c ≥9.0-15.0%, IDegLira resulted in similar HbA1c reduction, less hypoglycemia, and less weight gain compared with the basal-bolus regimen.

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2022.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting from November 3 to November 5, 2022. Meeting topics included (1) the measurement of glucose, insulin, and ketones; (2) virtual diabetes care; (3) metrics for managing diabetes and predicting outcomes; (4) integration of continuous glucose monitor data into the electronic health record; (5) regulation of diabetes technology; (6) digital health to nudge behavior; (7) estimating carbohydrates; (8) fully automated insulin delivery systems; (9) hypoglycemia; (10) novel insulins; (11) insulin delivery; (12) on-body sensors; (13) continuous glucose monitoring; (14) diabetic foot ulcers; (15) the environmental impact of diabetes technology; and (16) spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. A live demonstration of a device that can allow for the recycling of used insulin pens was also presented.

Efficacy and Safety of Intensive Versus Nonintensive Supplemental Insulin With a Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVE: Administration of supplemental sliding scale insulin for correction of hyperglycemia in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes is frequently used with basal-bolus insulin regimens. In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial we tested whether glycemic control is similar with and without aggressive sliding scale insulin treatment before meals and bedtime in patients treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes with admission blood glucose (BG) 140-400 mg/dL treated with basal-bolus insulin were randomized to intensive (correction for BG >140 mg/dL, n = 108) or to nonintensive (correction for BG >260 mg/dL, n = 107) administration of rapid-acting sliding scale insulin before meals and bedtime. The groups received the same amount of sliding scale insulin for BG >260 mg/dL. Primary outcome was difference in mean daily BG levels between the groups during hospitalization. RESULTS: Mean daily BG in the nonintensive group was noninferior to BG in the intensive group with equivalence margin of 18 mg/dL (intensive 172 ± 38 mg/dL vs. nonintensive 173 ± 43 mg/dL, P = 0.001 for noninferiority). There were no differences in the proportion of target BG readings of 70-180 mg/dL, <70 or <54 mg/dL (hypoglycemia), or >350 mg/dL (severe hyperglycemia) or total, basal, or prandial insulin doses. Significantly fewer subjects received sliding scale insulin in the nonintensive (n = 36 [34%]) compared with the intensive (n = 98 [91%] [P < 0.0001]) group with no differences in sliding scale insulin doses between the groups among those who received sliding scale insulin (intensive 7 ± 4 units/day vs. nonintensive 8 ± 4 units/day, P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Among non-ICU patients with type 2 diabetes on optimal basal-bolus insulin regimen with moderate hyperglycemia (BG <260 mg/dL), a less intensive sliding scale insulin treatment did not significantly affect glycemic control.

Outpatient clinic attendance and outcomes among patients hospitalized with diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on post-hospital discharge clinic attendance rates and outcomes among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Retrospective study of patients hospitalized with a DFU from 2016 to 2019 in a large public hospital. We measured rates and predictors of clinic attendance with providers involved with DFU care within 30 days of hospital discharge ("30-day post-discharge clinic attendance"). Log-binomial regression was used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 888 patients, 60.0 % were between 45 and 64 years old, 80.5 % were Black, and 24.1 % were uninsured. Overall, 478 (53.8 %) attended ≥1 30-day post-discharge clinic appointment. Initial hospital outcomes were associated with clinic attendance. For example, the RR of 30-day post-discharge clinic attendance was 1.39 (95%CI 1.19-1.61) among patients who underwent a major amputation compared to patients with DFUs without osteomyelitis and did not undergo an amputation during the initial hospitalization. Among 390 patients with known 12-month outcome, 71 (18.2 %) had a major amputation or died ≤12 months of hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: We found a low post-discharge clinic attendance and high post-discharge amputation and death rates among patients hospitalized with DFUs. Interventions to increase access to outpatient DFU care are needed and could prevent amputations.