Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Carbohydrate counting (CC), a recommended method for managing insulin bolus in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), depends on patient cognitive ability and motivation, and often does not account for ethnic foods. We have developed a simplified, accessible, patient-specific carbohydrate counting tool (SCC) to serve our very diverse population.

Objective: To retrospectively evaluate the long-term efficacy of the SCC with an emphasis on patients with moderate to poor glycemic control.

Method: The SCC tool is tailored to each patient’s insulin:carbohydrate ratio (I:C), insulin sensitivity (IS), and dietary pattern. It includes two tables written in the patient's preferred language. The first lists the units of insulin needed to correct pre-meal blood glucose to target glucose. The second contains a list of food items derived from participant's personal eating habits, carbohydrate content, and the number of insulin units needed.

At a median follow-up period of 6 months, we examined the change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in 212 patients with T1DM who utilized the SCC.

Results: At follow-up, HbA1c in the study population decreased by 1.07% (22.43 mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval 0.8–1.3, P < 0.001). The variables sex and diabetes duration were nearly statistically significant in relation to the change in HbA1c levels (P = 0.059, P = 0.056).

Conclusions: While not influenced by age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education, insulin delivery method, duration of diabetes, or residence, the SCC tool is designed to help adult patients with T1DM with moderate to poor glycemic control.

Background: Basal-bolus (BB) insulin treatment is increasingly used in poorly controlled diabetes patients during hospitalization and is commonly recommended at discharge; however, the extent of adherence with this recommendation is unknown.

Objectives: To determine short-term adherence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients discharged from internal medicine wards with recommendation for BB insulin treatment.

Methods: Prescription (primary physician adherence) and purchase (patient adherence) of long-acting and short-acting insulins during the first month following discharge from internal medicine wards was determined in 153 T2DM patients. Adherence was defined as full if prescription/purchase of both basal (long-acting) and bolus (short-acting) insulin was completed, and as partial if only one kind of insulin (basal or bolus) was prescribed/purchased. Association between demographic and clinical parameters and adherence was determined.

Results: Full adherence with discharge instructions was higher for primary physicians than for patients )79.1% vs. 69.3%, respectively, P = 0.0182). Pre-hospitalization hemoglobin A1C was significantly associated with adherence by both patients and primary physicians (full-adherence group 9.04% ± 2.04%; no-adherence group 7.51% ± 1.35%, P = 0.002). Age was negatively associated with adherence of both primary physicians and patients; however, this association did not reach statistical significance. Patients with certain background diseases such as atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, and chronic heart failure had significantly worse adherence (P < 0.05). When the sole cause of admission was diabetes, full adherence (100%) of both primary physicians and patients was found.

Conclusions: Short-term adherence with discharge recommendation for BB insulin treatment is associated with pre-hospitalization patient characteristics.

Background: Hyperglycemia is common among patients admitted to intensive care units, and carries the risk for complications and prolonged ICU[1] stay. With intensive insulin control of blood glucose, morbidity and mortality can be reduced.

Objectives: To determine whether intensive or conventional insulin control of blood glucose in hyperglycemic ICU patients correlated with the prognosis.

Methods: Following admission to the ICU, hyperglycemic patients were randomly assigned to a group treated intensively with insulin targeting glucose at 110–140 mg/dl, or to a conventional insulin therapy group, where glucose, upon exceeding 200 mg/dl, was controlled at 140–200 mg/dl. Rates of morbidity and mortality, hypoglycemic episodes, and insulin dosage were compared.

Results: In the 41 patients treated intensively with insulin the glucose level was 142 ± 14 mg/dl, as compared to 174 ± 20 mg/dl in the 48 patients on conventional insulin treatment. Both groups were similar in age, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score. Morbidity was also similar, except for increased vascular damage in the conventional treatment group and slightly shorter ICU stay in the intensive therapy group. Both groups had similar in-ICU, in-hospital, and 28 day mortalities, and similar rates of hypoglycemic episodes. The daily dosage of insulin was significantly higher with the conventional treatment (P = 0.004).

Conclusions: Intensive insulin treatment did not affect the mortality or morbidity rates in ICU patients. The increased insulin dosage of conventional insulin treatment was attributable to the group's higher prevalence of diabetes. Future studies should address this bias and determine the optimal glucose target.