Search

Purpose of Review: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is relatively common following acute pancreatitis (AP), even after mild acute pancreatitis (MAP), the most frequent AP presentation, in which there is no overt beta cell injury. Post-AP related diabetes is widely misdiagnosed, resulting in potentially inappropriate treatment and worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes (T2D). Thus, it is important to understand risk across the spectrum of AP severity., Recent Findings: Biological mechanisms are unclear and may include local and systemic inflammation leading to beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, altered gut barrier and/or gut peptides and possibly islet autoimmunity, though no studies have specifically focused on MAP. While studies examining clinical risk factors on MAP exclusively are lacking, there are studies which include MAP. These studies vary in scientific rigor, approaches to rule out preexisting diabetes, variable AP severity, diagnostic testing methods, and duration of follow-up. Overall, disease related factors, including AP severity, as well as established T2D risk factors are reported to contribute to the risk for DM following AP., Summary: Though numerous studies have explored risk factors for DM after AP, few studies specifically focused on MAP, highlighting a key knowledge gap that is relevant to the majority of patients with AP., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a disease characterized by an acute inflammatory phase followed by a convalescent phase. Diabetes mellitus (DM) was historically felt to be a transient phenomenon related to acute inflammation; however, it is increasingly recognized as an important late and chronic complication. There are several challenges that have prevented precisely determining the incidence rate of DM after AP and understanding the underlying mechanisms. The DREAM (Diabetes RElated to Acute Pancreatitis and its Mechanisms) Study is a prospective cohort study designed to address these and other knowledge gaps to provide the evidence needed to screen for, prevent, and treat DM after AP. In the following article, we summarize literature regarding the epidemiology of DM after AP and provide the rationale and an overview of the DREAM study., Competing Interests: E.A. is on the advisory board for Nestle. M.D.B. receives research support from Viacyte and Dexcom and is on advisory board for Insulet. K.M.D. receives research support from Sanofi, Viacyte, Abbott, and Dexcom; has consulting activities with Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elsevier; and receives honoraria from UptoDate, Elsevier, Medscape, and Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning. C.E.F. receives research support from AbbVie and has consulting activities with Nestle. G.I.P. receives research support from AbbVie and has consulting activities with Nestle. C.S. is on the advisory board for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. F.G.S.T. receives research support from Dompé Pharmaceuticals and has consulting activities with Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Objectives: The metabolic abnormalities that lead to diabetes mellitus (DM) after an episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) have not been extensively studied. This article describes the objectives, hypotheses, and methods of mechanistic studies of glucose metabolism that comprise secondary outcomes of the DREAM (Diabetes RElated to Acute pancreatitis and its Mechanisms) Study., Methods: Three months after an index episode of AP, participants without preexisting DM will undergo baseline testing with an oral glucose tolerance test. Participants will be followed longitudinally in three subcohorts with distinct metabolic tests. In the first and largest subcohort, oral glucose tolerance tests will be repeated 12 months after AP and annually to assess changes in β-cell function, insulin secretion, and insulin sensitivity. In the second, mixed meal tolerance tests will be performed at 3 and 12 months, then annually, and following incident DM to assess incretin and pancreatic polypeptide responses. In the third, frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance tests will be performed at 3 months and 12 months to assess the first-phase insulin response and more precisely measure β-cell function and insulin sensitivity., Conclusions: The DREAM study will comprehensively assess the metabolic and endocrine changes that precede and lead to the development of DM after AP., Competing Interests: K.M.D. has declared research support from Sanofi, Viacyte, Abbott, and Dexcom; consulting activities with Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elsevier, and Dexcom; and honoraria from UptoDate, Medscape, Academy for Continued Healthcare Learning, and Cardiometabolic Health Congress. M.D.B. has declared research support from Viacyte and Dexcom and consulting activities with Insulet (advisory board). C.E.-M. has received research support from Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Nimbus Therapeutics and consulting/advisory fees from Avotres, Inc, DiogenX, Isla Technologies, Provention Bio, Inc, MaiCell Therapeutics, and Dompe. R.E.P. has received grants (directed to his institution) from Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Janssen, Metavention, Novo Nordisk, Poxel SA, and Sanofi; has received consulting fees (directed to his institution) from AstraZeneca, Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, Glytec LLC, Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Janssen, Merck & Co, Inc., Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Inc, Sanofi, Scohia Pharma, Inc, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries; and has received support for attending meetings/travel (directed to his institution or to the travel provider) from AstraZeneca, Glytec LLC, Merck & Co, Inc, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Inc. E.K.S. has received honoraria from Medscape. C.S. has participated on an advisory board for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. F.G.S.T. has declared research support from Dompé Pharmaceuticals and previous consulting activities with Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Hyperglycemia is a common phenomenon in critically ill patients, even in those without diabetes. Two landmark studies established the benefits of tight glucose control (blood glucose target 80-110 mg/dL) in surgical and medical patients. Since then, literature has consistently demonstrated that both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia are independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality in a variety of critically ill patients. However, tight glycemic control has subsequently come into question due to risks of hypoglycemia and increased mortality. More recently, strategies targeting euglycemia (blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL) have been associated with improved outcomes, although the risk of hypoglycemia remains. More complex targets (ie, glycemic variability and time within target glucose range) and the impact of individual patient characteristics (ie, diabetic status and prehospital glucose control) have more recently been shown to influence the relationship between glycemic control and outcomes in critically ill patients. Although our understanding has increased, the optimal glycemic target is still unclear and glucose management strategies may require adjustment for individual patient characteristics. As glucose management increases in complexity, we realize that traditional means of using meters and strips and paper insulin titration algorithms are potential limitations to our success. To achieve these complex goals for glycemic control, the use of continuous or near-continuous glucose monitoring combined with computerized insulin titration algorithms may be required. The purpose of this review is to discuss the evidence surrounding the various domains of glycemic control and the emerging data supporting the need for individualized glucose targets in critically ill patients.