Introduction:The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients is an area of active research. We aimed to compare the efficacy and the safety of the basal-bolus insulin regimen versus linagliptin-basal insulin in non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients in a realworld setting. Methods: We enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated haemoglobin level < 8%, admission blood glucose concentration < 240 mg/dL, and no at-home injectable treatments who were treated with basal-bolus (n ¼ 347) or linagliptin-basal (n ¼ 190) regimens between January 2016 and December 2017. To match patients on the two regimens, a propensity matching analysis was performed. Results: After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. No differences were noted in mean blood glucose concentration after admission (p ¼ .162), number of patients with a mean blood glucose 100-140 mg/dL (p ¼ .163) and > 200 mg/dL (p ¼ .199), and treatment failures (p ¼ .395). Total daily insulin and number of daily insulin injections were lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both p < .001). Patients on linagliptin-basal insulin had fewer hypoglycaemic events (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) (p < .001). Conclusion: For type 2 diabetes surgery patients with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia without pre-hospitalization injectable therapies, linagliptin-basal insulin was an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events in real-world practice. KEY MESSAGESTreatment with basal-bolus insulin regimens is the standard of care for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. A differentiated treatment protocol that takes into account glycaemic control and clinical factors should be implemented in the hospital setting. Linagliptin-basal insulin is an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events during the hospitalization of non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients with T2D in realworld practice.

There is little evidence on the use of sodium−glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in hospitalised patients. This work aims to analyse the glycaemic and clinical efficacy and safety of empagliflozin continuation in patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalised for acute decompensated heart failure. This real-world observational study includes patients treated using our in-hospital antihyperglycaemic regimens (basal-bolus insulin vs. empagliflozin-basal insulin) between 2017 and 2020. A propensity matching analysis was used to match a patient on one regimen with a patient on the other regimen. Our primary endpoints were the differences in glycaemic control, as measured via mean daily blood glucose levels, and differences in the visual analogue scale dyspnoea score, NT-proBNP levels, diuretic response, and cumulative urine output. Safety endpoints were also analysed. After a propensity matching analysis, 91 patients were included in each group. There were no differences in mean blood glucose levels (152.1 ± 17.8 vs. 155.2 ± 19.7 mg/dL, p = 0.289). At discharge, NT-proBNP levels were lower and cumulative urine output greater in the empagliflozin group versus the basal-bolus insulin group (1652 ± 501 vs. 2101 ± 522 pg/mL, p = 0.032 and 16,100 ± 1510 vs. 13,900 ± 1220 mL, p = 0.037, respectively). Patients who continued empagliflozin had a lower total number of hypoglycaemic episodes (36 vs. 64, p < 0.001). No differences were observed in adverse events, length of hospital stay, or in-hospital deaths. For patients with acute heart failure, an in-hospital antihyperglycaemic regimen that includes continuation of empagliflozin achieved effective glycaemic control, lower NT-proBNP, and greater urine output. It was also safer, as it reduced hypoglycaemic episodes without increasing other safety endpoints.

Background: There is little evidence on the use of sodiumÀglucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in older patients with heart failure. This work analyzed the clinical efficacy and safety of empagliflozin continuation in very old patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. Methods: We conducted a real-world observational study between September 2015 and June 2021. Patients ≥80 years were grouped by antihyperglycemic regimen: (1) continuation of preadmission empagliflozin combined with basal insulin regimen and (2) conventional basal-bolus insulin regimen. A propensity score matching analysis matched patients in both groups in a 1:1 manner.The primary outcome was differences in clinical efficacy measured by the visual analogue scale dyspnea score, NT-proBNP levels, diuretic response, and cumulative urine output. Safety endpoints such as adverse events, worsening heart failure, discontinuation of empagliflozin, length of hospital stay, and inhospital deaths were also analyzed.Results: After propensity score matching, 79 patients were included in each group. At discharge, the N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were lower in the empagliflozin continuation group than in the insulin group (1699 ± 522 vs. 2303 ± 598 pg/ml, p = 0.021). Both the diuretic response and cumulative urine output were greater in patients treated with empagliflozin than in patients with basal-bolus insulin during the hospitalization (at discharge: À0.14 ± À0.06 vs. À0.24 ± À0.10, p = 0.044; and 16,100 ± 1510 vs. 13,900 ± 1220 ml, p = 0.037, respectively). No differences were observed in safety outcomes. Conclusions: In very old patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for acute heart failure, continuing preadmission empagliflozin reduced NT-proBNP Luis M. Pérez-Belmonte and Jaime Sanz-C anovas contributed equally to this work.