Real-world community hospital hyperglycemia management in noncritically ill, type 2 diabetic patients: a comparison between basal-bolus insulin and correctional insulin.

Purpose: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of two insulin regimens for inpatient hyperglycemia management: combination short-plus long-acting insulin (basal-bolus insulin regimen, BBIR) vs. short-acting insulin only (correctional insulin only regimen, CIOR). Methods: Chart reviews identified noncritically ill patients with pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin injections. Study participants (N = 138) were divided into BBIR (N = 104) and CIOR (N = 34) groups. Data for the entire duration of each patient's stay were analyzed. Results: The primary outcome of percent hyperglycemic days was higher in BBIR vs. CIOR (3.97 ± 0.33% vs. 1.22 ± 0.38%). The safety outcome of percent hypoglycemic events was not different between BBIR and CIOR (0.78 ± 0.22% vs. 0.53 ± 0.37%). Regarding secondary outcomes, the percentage of euglycemic days was lower in BBIR vs. CIOR (26.74 ± 2.97% vs. 40.98 ± 5.91%). Overall blood glucose (BG) and daily insulin dose were higher in BBIR vs. CIOR (231.43 ± 5.37 vs. 195.55 ± 6.25 mg/dL and 41.36 ± 3.07 vs. 5.02 ± 0.68 units, respectively). Insulin regimen-associated differences in hyperglycemia and daily insulin dose persisted after adjusting for covariates. Conclusion: Our observations linking BBIR to worse glycemic outcomes differ from those reported in the randomized controlled Rabbit 2 and Rabbit 2 Surgery trials. This discrepancy can be partly explained by the fact that BBIR patients displayed worse glycemic baselines. Also, there was no diabetes stewardship team to monitor BG and modify insulin therapy, which is relevant since achieving euglycemia in BBIR patients requires more dose adjustments. This study highlights challenges with standard inpatient glycemic management and calls for further research assessing the benefits of pharmacist-led diabetes stewardship.

Quetiapine Twice Daily Versus Bedtime Dosing in the Treatment of ICU Delirium.

Background: Although guidelines recommend twice daily (BID) dosing of quetiapine for treatment of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium in most patients, once daily dosing at bedtime (HS) is commonly prescribed to reduce daytime somnolence. No studies have evaluated differences in outcomes. Objectives: To determine if twice daily vs bedtime dosing of quetiapine reduces the duration of ICU delirium. Methods: Retrospective analysis of ICU patients treated with twice daily vs bedtime dosing of quetiapine for ICU delirium. Health records were analyzed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. Exclusions included alcohol withdrawal, history of psychiatric conditions requiring medication, receipt of <24 hours of therapy, alternative dosing schedules, and death or transfer from the ICU <24 hours after beginning quetiapine. The primary outcome was recovery of delirium per Confusion Assessment Method (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes included lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, in-hospital death, and QTc prolongation. Results: Baseline characteristics differed for sex (30.4% vs 61.1% female) and admission diagnosis (39% vs. 17% COVID-19, respectively). Time to delirium recovery was 3.5 days for BID vs 2.5 days for QHS dosing (P = .484). Secondary outcomes of ICU (16 vs. 19 days) and hospital (22 vs. 25 days) lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation (10 vs. 14), delirium recovery (70% vs. 56%), in-hospital death (61% vs. 50%), and QTc prolongation did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: Twice daily vs bedtime dosing of quetiapine did not significantly alter delirium outcomes, suggesting similar efficacy. Larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these results.

A Genetics-Focused Lens on Social Constructs in Pharmacy Education.

OBJECTIVE: Incorporating diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism principles into clinical and didactic education is essential because each influence cognitive and affective attitudes in pharmacy practice. Educators must learn from the past to enlighten the future. For example, race is a social construct, not a biological construct. However, it persistently acts as a surrogate for determining medical diagnoses and treatment. FINDINGS: Precision medicine and pharmacogenomics can serve as a basis for deconstructing social constructs surrounding race and other social determinants of health. SUMMARY: In this review, the authors highlight why using race in health education will lead to less-than-optimal clinical decisions and discuss best practices for incorporating diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism into health education from a pharmacogenomic-based perspective.