BACKGROUND: American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend a basal bolus correction insulin regimen as the preferred method of treatment for non-critically ill hospitalized patients. However, achieving ADA glucose targets safely, without hypoglycemia, is challenging. In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of basal bolus subcutaneous (SubQ) insulin therapy managed by providers compared to a nurse-directed Electronic Glycemic Management System (eGMS). METHOD: This retrospective crossover study evaluated 993 non-ICU patients treated with subcutaneous basal bolus insulin therapy managed by a provider compared to an eGMS. Analysis compared therapy outcomes before Glucommander (BGM), during Glucommander (DGM), and after Glucommander (AGM) for all patients. The blood glucose (BG) target was set at 140-180 mg/dL for all groups. The safety of each was evaluated by the following: (1) BG averages, (2) hypoglycemic events <40 and <70 mg/dL, and (3) percentage of BG in target. RESULT: Percentage of BG in target was BGM 47%, DGM 62%, and AGM 36%. Patients' BGM BG average was 195 mg/dL, DGM BG average was 169 mg/dL, and AGM BG average was 174 mg/dL. Percentage of hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL was 2.6% BGM, 1.9% DGM, and 2.8% AGM treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients using eGMS in the DGM group achieved improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL and <70 mg/dl) compared to both BGM and AGM management with standard treatment. These results suggest that an eGMS can safely maintain glucose control with less hypoglycemia than basal bolus treatment managed by a provider.
BACKGROUND: American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend a basal bolus correction insulin regimen as the preferred method of treatment for non-critically ill hospitalized patients. However, achieving ADA glucose targets safely, without hypoglycemia, is challenging. In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of basal bolus subcutaneous (SubQ) insulin therapy managed by providers compared to a nurse-directed Electronic Glycemic Management System (eGMS). METHOD: This retrospective crossover study evaluated 993 non-ICU patients treated with subcutaneous basal bolus insulin therapy managed by a provider compared to an eGMS. Analysis compared therapy outcomes before Glucommander (BGM), during Glucommander (DGM), and after Glucommander (AGM) for all patients. The blood glucose (BG) target was set at 140-180 mg/dL for all groups. The safety of each was evaluated by the following: (1) BG averages, (2) hypoglycemic events <40 and <70 mg/dL, and (3) percentage of BG in target. RESULT: Percentage of BG in target was BGM 47%, DGM 62%, and AGM 36%. Patients' BGM BG average was 195 mg/dL, DGM BG average was 169 mg/dL, and AGM BG average was 174 mg/dL. Percentage of hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL was 2.6% BGM, 1.9% DGM, and 2.8% AGM treatment. CONCLUSION:Patients using eGMS in the DGM group achieved improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL and <70 mg/dl) compared to both BGM and AGM management with standard treatment. These results suggest that an eGMS can safely maintain glucose control with less hypoglycemia than basal bolus treatment managed by a provider.
Authors: Etie S Moghissi; Mary T Korytkowski; Monica DiNardo; Daniel Einhorn; Richard Hellman; Irl B Hirsch; Silvio E Inzucchi; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; M Sue Kirkman; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Alexander Turchin; Michael E Matheny; Maria Shubina; James V Scanlon; Bonnie Greenwood; Merri L Pendergrass Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Guillermo E Umpierrez; Dawn Smiley; Ariel Zisman; Luz M Prieto; Andres Palacio; Miguel Ceron; Alvaro Puig; Roberto Mejia Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Guillermo E Umpierrez; Dawn Smiley; Sol Jacobs; Limin Peng; Angel Temponi; Patrick Mulligan; Denise Umpierrez; Christopher Newton; Darin Olson; Monica Rizzo Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Guillermo Umpierrez; Saumeth Cardona; Francisco Pasquel; Sol Jacobs; Limin Peng; Michael Unigwe; Christopher A Newton; Dawn Smiley-Byrd; Priyathama Vellanki; Michael Halkos; John D Puskas; Robert A Guyton; Vinod H Thourani Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rattan Juneja; Corbin P Roudebush; Stanley A Nasraway; Adam A Golas; Judith Jacobi; Joni Carroll; Deborah Nelson; Victor J Abad; Samuel J Flanders Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-10-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Annabelle Rodriguez; Michelle Magee; Pedro Ramos; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Ann Nolan; Kristen Kulasa; Kathryn Ann Caudell; Aimee Lamb; John MacIndoe; Greg Maynard Journal: Diabetes Spectr Date: 2014-08
Authors: Georgia M Davis; Rodolfo J Galindo; Alexandra L Migdal; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Jagdeesh Ullal; Joseph A Aloi; David Reyes-Umpierrez; Francisco J Pasquel; Raymie McFarland; Marina Rabinovich; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2018-01