HyperglycemiaNCT00582309
Comparative Trial Between 3 Types of Insulin Infusion Protocols
A study testing Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion, Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion and Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion in people with Hyperglycemia, run by University of New Mexico at 3 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Increasing evidence from observational studies in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes indicates that hyperglycemia is a predictor of poor outcome. Over the short-term, hyperglycemia can adversely affects fluid balance (through glycosuria and dehydration), impairs immunologic response to infection, and… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Hyperglycemia
- What is being tested?
- Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion, Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion and Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 151 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2007to Dec 2008
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients who are admitted to Medical or Surgical ICU.
- History of diabetes mellitus
- Newly diagnosed hyperglycemia (defined as a blood glucose greater than 140 mg/dl on ≥ 2 occasions)
- Subjects must have an admission blood glucose < 500 mg/dL, without laboratory evidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (serum bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L or positive serum or urinary ketones).
Who cannot join
- Non-Diabetic patients
- Subjects with acute hyperglycemic crises such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.
- Patients with known HIV
- Patients with severely impaired renal function (serum creatinine ≥3.0 mg/dl).
- Patients with mental condition rendering the subject unable to understand the nature, scope, and possible consequences of the study.
- Female subjects who are pregnant or breast feeding at time of enrollment into the study
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
United States3 sites
Presbyterian Hospital
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87106
University of New Mexico Hospital
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131
St. James Hospital and Health Centers
Chicago Heights, Illinois, 60411
About this study
Official title: Comparative Trial Between Computer-Guided Intravenous Infusion Protocol Versus a Standard Insulin Infusion Algorithm Versus a Simple Calculated Infusion Protocol in Medical and Surgical ICU
Increasing evidence from observational studies in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes indicates that hyperglycemia is a predictor of poor outcome. Over the short-term, hyperglycemia can adversely affects fluid balance (through glycosuria and dehydration), impairs immunologic response to infection, and promotes inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Blood glucose control with intensive insulin therapy in patients with acute critical illness reduces the risk of multiorgan failure and systemic infections, and decreases short- and long-term mortality .
- Hypotheses: we hypothesize that management of inpatient hyperglycemia with a computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander) will facilitate a smoother glycemic control with a lower rate of hypoglycemic events than treatment following a standard insulin infusion algorithm or a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
Read the detailed description
- RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC AIMS
- Introduction:
Increasing evidence from observational studies in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes indicates that hyperglycemia is a predictor of poor outcome. Over the short-term, hyperglycemia can adversely affects fluid balance (through glycosuria and dehydration), impairs immunologic response to infection, and promotes inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Blood glucose control with intensive insulin therapy in patients with acute critical illness reduces the risk of multiorgan failure and systemic infections, and decreases short- and long-term mortality .
The use of intravenous insulin infusion is the preferred route of insulin administration for the management of diabetic subjects with diabetic ketoacidosis and nonketotic hyperosmolar state, intraoperative and postoperative care, the postoperative period following heart surgery and organ transplantation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and critical care illness. Some of these settings may be characterized by, or associated with, severe or rapidly changing insulin requirements, generalized patient edema, impaired perfusion of subcutaneous sites, requirement for pressor support, and/or use of total parenteral nutrition. In these settings, the intravenous route for insulin administration has been considered superior to the subcutaneous injection of split-mixed regimen of intermediate and regular insulin with respect to rapidity of effect in controlling hyperglycemia, overall ability to achieve glycemic control, and most importantly, preventing hypoglycemic episodes. Recently, several insulin infusion protocols have been reported in the literature . In general, orders to "titrate drip" are given to achieve a target blood glucose range using an established algorithm or by the application of mathematical rules by nursing staff. These algorithms and formulas, however, may be confusing and difficult to follow and may increase the risk of dosing errors. To facilitate patient care, insulin algorithms could be placed on a computer and used at the patient bedside to direct the nursing staff administering the intravenous insulin. The Glucommander is one such computer-derived insulin infusion protocol which has been used successfully in over 5,802 patients with diabetes between 1984 and 1998.
- Hypotheses: we hypothesize that management of inpatient hyperglycemia with a computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander) will facilitate a smoother glycemic control with a lower rate of hypoglycemic events than treatment following a standard insulin infusion algorithm or a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
- Specific Aim: to determine differences in glycemic control between treatment with computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander), a standard insulin infusion algorithm and a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
II. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF WORK IN THE FIELD.
The result of several observational and interventional studies indicate that hyperglycemia is associated with poor hospital outcomes including prolonged hospital stay, infections, disability after hospital discharge, and death , and that improvement in outcomes can be achieved with improved glycemic control in patients with critical and surgical illness. Although there are still no proven mechanisms to explain the detrimental effects of hyperglycemia, there are increasing efforts worldwide to improve and maintain strict glycemic control in subjects with critical illness.
In 2001, a large prospective, randomized controlled trial from Leuven, showed that near normalization of blood glucose levels using an intensive insulin protocol improved clinical outcomes in patients admitted to a surgical intensive care area . In that study, insulin administration to maintain blood glucose levels between 80-110 mg/dl, reduced ICU mortality by 34%, and reduced the risk of multiorgan failure, systemic infection, incidence of acute renal failure, and the need for blood transfusions and prolonged mechanical ventilatory support. Interventional studies in the setting of acute coronary events have shown that intensive insulin therapy resulted in decreased short- and long-term mortality. Similarly, attainment of targeted glucose control in the setting of cardiac surgery is associated with reduced mortality and with a significant reduction in deep sternal wound infections. Similarly, in the setting of acute neurological illness, stroke, and head injury extensive observational and interventional studies indicates that hyperglycemia is associated with increased mortality and with diminished neurological recovery . Based in these observational and interventional studies, aggressive control of blood glucose is recommended in patients with critical illness. A recent position statement of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommended glycemic targets for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit between 80 - 110 mg/dL.
The American College of Endocrinology position statement supports the following indications for intravenous insulin therapy in hospitalized patients with diabetes:
- Prolonged fasting (> 12 hours) in type 1 diabetes
- Critical illness
- Before major surgical procedures
- After organ transplantation
- Diabetic ketoacidosis
- Total parenteral nutrition therapy
- Labor and delivery
- Myocardial infarction
- Other illnesses requiring prompt glucose control.
Institutions around the world use a variety of insulin infusion algorithms that can be implemented by nursing staff. These algorithms facilitate communication between physicians and nurses, achieve correction of hyperglycemia in a timely manner, provide a method to determine the insulin infusion rate required to maintain blood sugars within a defined target range, include a rule for making temporary corrective increments or decrements of insulin infusion rate without under- or overcompensation, and allow for adjustment of the maintenance rate as patient insulin sensitivity or carbohydrate intake changes. In most insulin infusion protocols, orders to "titrate drip" are given to achieve a target blood glucose range using an established algorithm or by the application of mathematical rules by nursing staff. These algorithms may be confusing and difficult to follow which may increase the risk of errors.
To facilitate patient care, Drs. Davidson and Steed developed the Glucommander in 1984, a computer based system for glycemic control in hospitalized patients. This computer-guided insulin infusion system directs the administration of intravenous insulin in response to blood glucose measurement at the patient's bedside. Prior to starting the insulin infusion, the physician must specify the following parameters: the low end and high end of the target range for blood glucose, an initial factor or multiplier, and the maximum time interval between blood glucose measurements. During the infusion, the nurse enters blood glucose levels and the computer recommends the insulin infusion rate and a time to check the next blood glucose testing. The starting insulin infusion follows the formula: insulin / hour = multiplier x (BG - 60). The "multiplier" is a parameter that is automatically adjusted based on the glucose pattern and response to insulin. For most adults, the initial multiplier is 0.02. The Glucommander is programmed to adjust the multiplier upwards or downwards if blood glucose levels are above or below target levels.
This study will compare three methods of comparing how glucose is regulated with IV insulin. The first method uses a sliding scale of insulin based on glucoses drawn at set intervals. The second method uses an algorithm that uses the glucose drawn at a set interval and also how much that glucose changed from the last time the glucose was drawn to adjust the amount of insulin to be given. The algorithm takes into count how fast the glucose is changing and also how far the glucose is from the expected values to improve the accuracy of the amount of insulin to be given. The glucocommander is a handheld based algorithm that again takes in how fast the glucose has changed and how far the glucose is from where you want to be and adds another layer in that it tells the nurse when to draw the next glucose so that if the glucose is very far away from the expected value drawing glucose in a shorter time period will help get to the expected glucose faster. The comparison is does the method reach the expected glucose faster and how often is the glucose going to be to low. Methods that improve the way to get the glucose to the expected value are not better for the patient if they increase the chance of hypoglycemia. This study will compare three methods of regulating glucose with insulin.
- Conditions
- Hyperglycemia
- Being tested
- Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion, Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion, Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion
- Keywords
- Glycemic Control, Intravenous Infusion, Standard Insulin infusion algorithm, Infusion, Critically Ill
- Medical subject headings
- Hyperglycemia, Critical Illness
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin InfusionProcedure or surgery
Also called Computer controlled Algorithm for insulin administration
Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion.
- Prepare IV Insulin Drip: 250 units of glulisine (Apidra®) insulin with 250 ml NS (1.0 unit/ml). Piggyback insulin drip into IV fluids.
- During the infusion, enter glucose levels into the Glucommander and follow recommendations regarding infusion rate and time to measure next blood glucose levels.
Standard Intravenous Insulin InfusionProcedure or surgery
Also called Algorithm controlled insulin administration
Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion in the ICU setting Prepare IV Insulin Drip: 250 units of glulisine (Apidra®) insulin with 250 ml NS (1.0 unit/ml). Piggyback insulin drip into IV fluids.
Algorithm 1: Start here for most patients. Algorithm 2: For patients not controlled with Algorithm 1, or receiving glucocorticoids, or patient with diabetes receiving >80 units/day of insulin as an outpatient.
Algorithm 3: For patients not controlled on Algorithm 2.No Patients Start Here.
Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin InfusionProcedure or surgery
Also called Simple sliding scale for insulin administration
If the patient was on insulin prior to this admission, 1/2 of the total insulin dose divided by 24 will be the initial insulin infusion rate. The amount of insulin given will be dependant upon blood sugar levels ( BG levels 80-120= 0.5 units/hr, 121-160=1.0 units/hr, 161-200= 2.0 units/hr, 201-240= 3.0 units/hr, 241-280= 4.0 units/hr, 281-320= 5.0 units/hr, 321-360=6.0 units, 361-400= 7.0 units, greater than 400= 8.0 units.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Glucommander | Active comparator | Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion Receives: Procedure: Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion |
| Standard | Active comparator | Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion Algorithm consists of four levels (Algorithm 1-3 and a doubling of the insulin rate). Most patients begin in algorithm 1, where the insulin rate varies from 0.2 units per hour for BG in the range 70-109 mg/dl up to 6 units/hr for BG > 360 mg/dl. If algorithm 1 fails to bring the patient's BG into target range in 2 hrs, then the patient is moved up to algorithm 2, where the insulin rate varies from 0.5 to 12 units/hr; and if that fails, the patient moved up to algorithm 3, where insulin rate varies from 1 to 16 units/hr depending on the latest BG. Algorithm failure is a blood glucose outside the target range for 2 hrs, and the blood glucose does not decrease by at least 60 mg/dl within 1 hr. If algorithm 3 fails, the insulin rate is doubled. Receives: Procedure: Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion |
| Simple | Active comparator | Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion consists of an initial insulin infusion rate varying from 0.5 units per hour for BG in the target range 80-120 mg/dl up to 8 units/hour for BG > 400 mg/dl. After the initial insulin rate and if BG is still > 120 mg/dl, then the insulin rate is increased by 1-2 units every 1 hour until BG is in the target range. If BG is still >120 mg/dl in 2 hours, then the insulin rate is doubled. Receives: Procedure: Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Differences in Glycemic Control as Measured by Time Reach Glycemic Control for Each Treatment Group.
The protocol were compared by measuring in each patient time to acquire the Blood Glucose (BG) target range (80-120 mg/dl) defined by reaching a BG < 120, and maintaining the target range thereafter.
Measured: 24 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Dec 2007 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2007
- Primary completionDec 2008
- Study completionDec 2008
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for HyperglycemiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 151 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of New Mexico
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Sanofi
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gary Iwamoto, University of New Mexico
- Investigators
- Gary Iwamoto, M.D., Principal investigator, University of New Mexico
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00582309
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HRRC 06-288
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 19 Dec 2007
- Last updated
- 23 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Trial Between Computer-Guided Intravenous Infusion Protocol Versus a Standard Insulin Infusion Algorithm Versus a Simple Calculated Infusion Protocol in Medical and Surgical ICU
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00582309
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HRRC 06-288
- Conditions
- Hyperglycemia
- Keywords
- Glycemic Control, Intravenous Infusion, Standard Insulin infusion algorithm, Infusion, Critically Ill
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 151 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of New MexicoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Sanofi
- Study start
- Aug 2007
- Primary completion
- Dec 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2008 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Dec 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 25 Jan 2010
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Increasing evidence from observational studies in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes indicates that hyperglycemia is a predictor of poor outcome. Over the short-term, hyperglycemia can adversely affects fluid balance (through glycosuria and dehydration), impairs immunologic response to infection, and promotes inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Blood glucose control with intensive insulin therapy in patients with acute critical illness reduces the risk of multiorgan failure and systemic infections, and decreases short- and long-term mortality .
- Hypotheses: we hypothesize that management of inpatient hyperglycemia with a computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander) will facilitate a smoother glycemic control with a lower rate of hypoglycemic events than treatment following a standard insulin infusion algorithm or a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
Detailed description
- RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC AIMS
- Introduction:
Increasing evidence from observational studies in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes indicates that hyperglycemia is a predictor of poor outcome. Over the short-term, hyperglycemia can adversely affects fluid balance (through glycosuria and dehydration), impairs immunologic response to infection, and promotes inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Blood glucose control with intensive insulin therapy in patients with acute critical illness reduces the risk of multiorgan failure and systemic infections, and decreases short- and long-term mortality .
The use of intravenous insulin infusion is the preferred route of insulin administration for the management of diabetic subjects with diabetic ketoacidosis and nonketotic hyperosmolar state, intraoperative and postoperative care, the postoperative period following heart surgery and organ transplantation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and critical care illness. Some of these settings may be characterized by, or associated with, severe or rapidly changing insulin requirements, generalized patient edema, impaired perfusion of subcutaneous sites, requirement for pressor support, and/or use of total parenteral nutrition. In these settings, the intravenous route for insulin administration has been considered superior to the subcutaneous injection of split-mixed regimen of intermediate and regular insulin with respect to rapidity of effect in controlling hyperglycemia, overall ability to achieve glycemic control, and most importantly, preventing hypoglycemic episodes. Recently, several insulin infusion protocols have been reported in the literature . In general, orders to "titrate drip" are given to achieve a target blood glucose range using an established algorithm or by the application of mathematical rules by nursing staff. These algorithms and formulas, however, may be confusing and difficult to follow and may increase the risk of dosing errors. To facilitate patient care, insulin algorithms could be placed on a computer and used at the patient bedside to direct the nursing staff administering the intravenous insulin. The Glucommander is one such computer-derived insulin infusion protocol which has been used successfully in over 5,802 patients with diabetes between 1984 and 1998.
- Hypotheses: we hypothesize that management of inpatient hyperglycemia with a computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander) will facilitate a smoother glycemic control with a lower rate of hypoglycemic events than treatment following a standard insulin infusion algorithm or a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
- Specific Aim: to determine differences in glycemic control between treatment with computer-guided intravenous infusion protocol (Glucommander), a standard insulin infusion algorithm and a simple calculated infusion protocol in critically ill patients in the medical and surgical ICU.
II. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF WORK IN THE FIELD.
The result of several observational and interventional studies indicate that hyperglycemia is associated with poor hospital outcomes including prolonged hospital stay, infections, disability after hospital discharge, and death , and that improvement in outcomes can be achieved with improved glycemic control in patients with critical and surgical illness. Although there are still no proven mechanisms to explain the detrimental effects of hyperglycemia, there are increasing efforts worldwide to improve and maintain strict glycemic control in subjects with critical illness.
In 2001, a large prospective, randomized controlled trial from Leuven, showed that near normalization of blood glucose levels using an intensive insulin protocol improved clinical outcomes in patients admitted to a surgical intensive care area . In that study, insulin administration to maintain blood glucose levels between 80-110 mg/dl, reduced ICU mortality by 34%, and reduced the risk of multiorgan failure, systemic infection, incidence of acute renal failure, and the need for blood transfusions and prolonged mechanical ventilatory support. Interventional studies in the setting of acute coronary events have shown that intensive insulin therapy resulted in decreased short- and long-term mortality. Similarly, attainment of targeted glucose control in the setting of cardiac surgery is associated with reduced mortality and with a significant reduction in deep sternal wound infections. Similarly, in the setting of acute neurological illness, stroke, and head injury extensive observational and interventional studies indicates that hyperglycemia is associated with increased mortality and with diminished neurological recovery . Based in these observational and interventional studies, aggressive control of blood glucose is recommended in patients with critical illness. A recent position statement of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommended glycemic targets for hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit between 80 - 110 mg/dL.
The American College of Endocrinology position statement supports the following indications for intravenous insulin therapy in hospitalized patients with diabetes:
- Prolonged fasting (> 12 hours) in type 1 diabetes
- Critical illness
- Before major surgical procedures
- After organ transplantation
- Diabetic ketoacidosis
- Total parenteral nutrition therapy
- Labor and delivery
- Myocardial infarction
- Other illnesses requiring prompt glucose control.
Institutions around the world use a variety of insulin infusion algorithms that can be implemented by nursing staff. These algorithms facilitate communication between physicians and nurses, achieve correction of hyperglycemia in a timely manner, provide a method to determine the insulin infusion rate required to maintain blood sugars within a defined target range, include a rule for making temporary corrective increments or decrements of insulin infusion rate without under- or overcompensation, and allow for adjustment of the maintenance rate as patient insulin sensitivity or carbohydrate intake changes. In most insulin infusion protocols, orders to "titrate drip" are given to achieve a target blood glucose range using an established algorithm or by the application of mathematical rules by nursing staff. These algorithms may be confusing and difficult to follow which may increase the risk of errors.
To facilitate patient care, Drs. Davidson and Steed developed the Glucommander in 1984, a computer based system for glycemic control in hospitalized patients. This computer-guided insulin infusion system directs the administration of intravenous insulin in response to blood glucose measurement at the patient's bedside. Prior to starting the insulin infusion, the physician must specify the following parameters: the low end and high end of the target range for blood glucose, an initial factor or multiplier, and the maximum time interval between blood glucose measurements. During the infusion, the nurse enters blood glucose levels and the computer recommends the insulin infusion rate and a time to check the next blood glucose testing. The starting insulin infusion follows the formula: insulin / hour = multiplier x (BG - 60). The "multiplier" is a parameter that is automatically adjusted based on the glucose pattern and response to insulin. For most adults, the initial multiplier is 0.02. The Glucommander is programmed to adjust the multiplier upwards or downwards if blood glucose levels are above or below target levels.
This study will compare three methods of comparing how glucose is regulated with IV insulin. The first method uses a sliding scale of insulin based on glucoses drawn at set intervals. The second method uses an algorithm that uses the glucose drawn at a set interval and also how much that glucose changed from the last time the glucose was drawn to adjust the amount of insulin to be given. The algorithm takes into count how fast the glucose is changing and also how far the glucose is from the expected values to improve the accuracy of the amount of insulin to be given. The glucocommander is a handheld based algorithm that again takes in how fast the glucose has changed and how far the glucose is from where you want to be and adds another layer in that it tells the nurse when to draw the next glucose so that if the glucose is very far away from the expected value drawing glucose in a shorter time period will help get to the expected glucose faster. The comparison is does the method reach the expected glucose faster and how often is the glucose going to be to low. Methods that improve the way to get the glucose to the expected value are not better for the patient if they increase the chance of hypoglycemia. This study will compare three methods of regulating glucose with insulin.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Glucommander | Active comparator | Procedure: Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin InfusionGlucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion |
| Standard | Active comparator | Procedure: Standard Intravenous Insulin InfusionStandard Intravenous Insulin Infusion Algorithm consists of four levels (Algorithm 1-3 and a doubling of the insulin rate). Most patients begin in algorithm 1, where the insulin rate varies from 0.2 units per hour for BG in the range 70-109 mg/dl up to 6 units/hr for BG > 360 mg/dl. If algorithm 1 fails to bring the patient's BG into target range in 2 hrs, then the patient is moved up to algorithm 2, where the insulin rate varies from 0.5 to 12 units/hr; and if that fails, the patient moved up to algorithm 3, where insulin rate varies from 1 to 16 units/hr depending on the latest BG. Algorithm failure is a blood glucose outside the target range for 2 hrs, and the blood glucose does not decrease by at least 60 mg/dl within 1 hr. If algorithm 3 fails, the insulin rate is doubled. |
| Simple | Active comparator | Procedure: Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin InfusionSimple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion consists of an initial insulin infusion rate varying from 0.5 units per hour for BG in the target range 80-120 mg/dl up to 8 units/hour for BG > 400 mg/dl. After the initial insulin rate and if BG is still > 120 mg/dl, then the insulin rate is increased by 1-2 units every 1 hour until BG is in the target range. If BG is still >120 mg/dl in 2 hours, then the insulin rate is doubled. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients who are admitted to Medical or Surgical ICU.
- History of diabetes mellitus
- Newly diagnosed hyperglycemia (defined as a blood glucose greater than 140 mg/dl on ≥ 2 occasions)
- Subjects must have an admission blood glucose < 500 mg/dL, without laboratory evidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (serum bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L or positive serum or urinary ketones).
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Non-Diabetic patients
- Subjects with acute hyperglycemic crises such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.
- Patients with known HIV
- Patients with severely impaired renal function (serum creatinine ≥3.0 mg/dl).
- Patients with mental condition rendering the subject unable to understand the nature, scope, and possible consequences of the study.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin InfusionAlso: Computer controlled Algorithm for insulin administrationGlucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion. * Prepare IV Insulin Drip: 250 units of glulisine (Apidra®) insulin with 250 ml NS (1.0 unit/ml). Piggyback insulin drip into IV fluids. * During the infusion, enter glucose levels into the Glucommander and follow recommendations regarding infusion rate and time to measure next blood glucose levels. | Procedure or surgery | Glucommander |
| Standard Intravenous Insulin InfusionAlso: Algorithm controlled insulin administrationStandard Intravenous Insulin Infusion Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion in the ICU setting Prepare IV Insulin Drip: 250 units of glulisine (Apidra®) insulin with 250 ml NS (1.0 unit/ml). Piggyback insulin drip into IV fluids. Algorithm 1: Start here for most patients. Algorithm 2: For patients not controlled with Algorithm 1, or receiving glucocorticoids, or patient with diabetes receiving >80 units/day of insulin as an outpatient. Algorithm 3: For patients not controlled on Algorithm 2.No Patients Start Here. | Procedure or surgery | Standard |
| Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin InfusionAlso: Simple sliding scale for insulin administrationIf the patient was on insulin prior to this admission, 1/2 of the total insulin dose divided by 24 will be the initial insulin infusion rate. The amount of insulin given will be dependant upon blood sugar levels ( BG levels 80-120= 0.5 units/hr, 121-160=1.0 units/hr, 161-200= 2.0 units/hr, 201-240= 3.0 units/hr, 241-280= 4.0 units/hr, 281-320= 5.0 units/hr, 321-360=6.0 units, 361-400= 7.0 units, greater than 400= 8.0 units. | Procedure or surgery | Simple |
Primary outcome
Differences in Glycemic Control as Measured by Time Reach Glycemic Control for Each Treatment Group.
Time frame: 24 hours
The protocol were compared by measuring in each patient time to acquire the Blood Glucose (BG) target range (80-120 mg/dl) defined by reaching a BG < 120, and maintaining the target range thereafter.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Jun 2015.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Hyperglycemia
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Evaluation of the Clinical Spectrum of Diabetes and Obesity in Youth and Adults
Obesity, Diabetes
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Efficacy of the pA1c®HI Postbiotic in Metabolic Regulation in Healthy Individuals With Hyperglycemia
Hyperglycemias, Prediabetes
Active, not recruiting
Insulin Balanced Infusion System
Hyperglycemia, Diabetes
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Unmasking Diabetes in Dialysis With Continuous Glucose Monitoring
End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD), Hyperglycaemia
RecruitingPhase 1
Understanding the Health Effect of a Bioactive Peptide From Egg: A Pilot Study
High Blood Sugar, High Blood Pressure
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gary Iwamoto, M.D. principal investigator
University of New Mexico
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Glucommander-Guided Intravenous Insulin Infusion, Standard Intravenous Insulin Infusion and Simple Calculated Intravenous Insulin Infusion in people with Hyperglycemia, run by University of New Mexico at 3 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Jan 2010). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Differences in Glycemic Control as Measured by Time Reach Glycemic Control for Each Treatment Group. (time frame: 24 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Jun 2015; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 4 Nov 2026.