A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between using subcutaneous insulin and continuous insulin infusion in managing adult patients with diabetic ketoacidosis.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the current literature to determine the safety and efficacy of using subcutaneous insulin compared to an intravenous (IV) insulin infusion in managing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

METHODS

We searched Ovid-Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, BIOSIS and CENTRAL from inception to April 26, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that assessed the use of subcutaneous compared to intravenous insulin for the treatment of mild to moderate DKA were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers and disagreements were resolved through further discussion or by a third reviewer. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 was used to evaluate the RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS)-I tool was used to evaluate the observational studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for reporting our findings.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (245 participants) and four observational studies (8444 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Some studies showed a decreased length of stay (Mean Difference [MD] in days: -0.39; 95% CI: -2.83 to 2.08; I: 0%) among individuals treated with subcutaneous insulin compared to intravenous insulin. There was no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality, time to resolution of DKA (MD in hours: 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.45 to 3.79; I: 0%) and hypoglycemia (Risk Ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.19; I: 0%) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of DKA with subcutaneous insulin may be a safe and effective alternative to IV insulin in selected patients. The limited available evidence underscores the need for further studies to explore optimal dosing, patient selection criteria and long-term outcomes.