Use of Computerized Insulin Dose Adjustment Algorithms to Facilitate Adjusting Insulin Doses by Primary Care Providers
Main Article Content
Abstract
Insulin use is challenging for both primary care providers (PCPs) and patients. For PCPs, a major challenge is time constraints, and for many, inexperience. For patients, it is providing enough fingerstick glucose readings for insulin dose adjustments to be made. The first author has developed algorithms for adjusting insulin doses based on the following principles. Depending on when injected, each component of the insulin regimen has a maximal effect on a specific period of the 24-hour cycle, e.g., overnight, morning, afternoon, evening. The glucose pattern in that period determines whether the dose of that component of the insulin regimen requires adjusting or not. There needs to be enough glucose readings in a period that reflects a patient’s current lifestyle for a decision to be made about that component of the insulin regimen that maximally affects that period.
A registered nurse using these algorithms at clinic visits lowered HbA1c levels in 111 poorly controlled insulin-requiring patients from 11.0% to 7.2% within 9-12 months. When computerized, these FDA-cleared algorithms produce a report within 15 seconds after glucose meters are downloaded with recommendations for insulin dose adjustments that the PCP can modify or accept. In a pilot project utilizing these computerized algorithms in poorly controlled insulin-requiring patients who performed remote glucose monitoring, baseline HbA1c levels decreased from 10.0% to 8.1% in 3 months and to 7.6% in 6 months without any clinic visits for adjustment of insulin doses. In a proof-of-concept project utilizing these computerized algorithms in poorly controlled insulin-requiring patients using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), baseline HbA1c levels decreased from 11.5% to 8.3% over a mean of 3 months.
Computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms and CGM meet both the PCP and patient challenges. These innovations should be strongly considered to effectively decrease HbA1c levels, especially in poorly controlled patients.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Carls G, Huynh J, Tuttle E, Yee J, Edelman SV. Achievement of glycated hemoglobin goals in the US remains unchanged through 2014. Diabetes Care 2017; 8:863-873. doi: 10.1007/s13300-017-0280-5
3 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Overview of 6 years’ therapy of type II diabetes: a progressive disease. Diabetes 1995;44:1249-1258. PMID: 758982
4. Holman RR. Assessing the potential for α-glucosidase inhibitors in prediabetic states. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 1998;40(Suppl):S21-S25. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8227(98)00038-2
5. Davidson JA. The increasing role of primary physicians in caring for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mayo Clin Proc 2010;85(Suppl 12) S3-S4.
6. Calvert MJ, McManis RJ, Freemantle N. Management of type 2 diabetes with multiple oral hyperglycaemic agents or insulin in primary care retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:455-460. PMID: 17550670
7. Khunti K, Wolden MI, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ. Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411-3417. PMID: 23877982
8. Harris SB, Kapor J, Lank CN, Willan AR, Houston T. Clinical inertia in patients with T2DM requiring insulin in family practice. Can Fam Physician 2010;6:e418-e424.
9. Home P, Naggar NE, Khamseh M, et al. An observational non-interventional study of people with diabetes beginning or changed to insulin analogue therapy in non-Western countries: the A1chieve study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011;94:352-363. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.021.
10. Mata-Cases M, Franch-Nadal J, Real J, et al. Therapeutic inertia in patients treated with two or more antidiabetics in primary care: factors predicting intensification of treatment. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20:103-112. doi: 10.1111/dom.13045
11. Kostev K, Rathmann W. Changes in time to insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes patients: a retrospective database analysis in Germany and UK (2005-2010). Prim Care Diabetes 2013;7:229-233. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2013.03.003
12. Jeavons D, Hungin APS, Cornford CS. Patients with poorly controlled diabetes in primary care: healthcare clinicians’ beliefs and attitudes. Postgrad Med J 2006;82:347-350.
13. Meece J. Dispelling myths and removing barriers about insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2006;32:1342-1349.
14. Cuddihy RM, Philis-Tsimikas A, Nazeri A. Type 2 diabetes care and insulin intensification: is a more multidisciplinary approach needed? Results from the MODIFY Survey. Diabetes Educ 2011;37:111-123. DOI: 10.1177/0145721710388426
15. Patrick AR, Fischer MA, Choudry NK, et al. Trends in insulin initiation and treatment intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes. J. Gen Intern Med 2013;29:320-327. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2643-6
16. Khunti K, Nikolajsen A, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ, Paul SK. Clinical inertia with regard to intensifying therapy in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Obes Metab 2016;18:401-409. doi: 10.1111/dom.12626
17. Ascher-Svanum H, Lage M, Perez-Nieves M, et al. Early discontinuation and restart of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther 2014;5:225-242. doi: 10.1007/s13300-014-0065-z
18. Bonafede M, Chandran A, DiMano S, et al. Medication usage, treatment intensification, and medical cost in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database study. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care 2016:4e000189. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2015-00189
19. Ziemer DC, Miller CD, Rhee MK, et al. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting. Diabetes Educ 2005;31:564-571. DOI: 10.1177/0145721705279050
20. Chen Y, Abbott S, Nguyen M, Grabner M, Quimbo R. Glycemic control of insulin treated patients across the U.S.: epidemiologic analysis of a commercially insured population. Diabetes 2013;62(Suppl 1):A704.
21. Presented at the 18th ISPOR annual European Congress, Milan, Italy, 2015.
22. Pantalone KM, Misra-Hebert AD, Hobbs TM, et al. The probability of A1C goal attainment in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in a large integrated delivery system: a prediction model. Diabetes Care 2020;43:1910-1919. PMID: 32527797
23. Davidson MB, Blanco-Castellanos M, Duran P: Integrating nurse-directed diabetes management into a primary care setting. Am J Manag Care 2010;16:652-656. PMID: 20873952
24. Davidson MB. Delayed response to NPH insulin. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004; 64:229. PMID: 15126013
25. Davidson MB. Delayed response to NPH insulin. In: Diabetes Case Files: Real
Problems, Practical Solutions, Draznin B (ed), American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, VA, 2014, pp 267-270.
26. Davidson MB. Delayed response to U-500 regular insulin. Clin Diabetes 2018;36:77-79. PMID: 29382984
27. Bashan E, Herman WH, Hodish I. Are glucose readings sufficient to adjust insulin dosage? Diabetes Tech Therap 2011;13:85-92. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0112
28. Davidson MB, Davidson, SJ: Effect of remote glucose monitoring utilizing computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms: a pilot project. Diabetes Ther 2019;10:523-533. doi: 10.1007/s13300-019-0565-y
29. Davidson MB, Davidson SJ: Effective use of computerized insulin dose adjustment algorithms (CIDAA) on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) results in poorly controlled patients by a clinical pharmacist – a proof of concept project. J Diabetes (in press).
30. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019;42:1593-1603. doi: 10.2337/dci19-0028
31. Nathan DM, Genuth SM, Lachin J, et al. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. New Engl J Med 1993;329:977-986. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401
32. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Arake E, et al. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995;28:103-117. doi: 10.1016/0168-8227(95)01064-k
33. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837-853. PMID: 9742976
34. Skyler JS. Diabetic complications: the importance of glucose control. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1996;25:243-254. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8529(05)70323-6
35. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321(7258):405-412. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405
36. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 2018;41:917-928. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0007
37. Gilmer TP, O’Connor PJ, Manning WG, et al. The cost to health plans of poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1847-1853. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.20.12.1847