Search

Background Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. Methods This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes. Discussion The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams., Background: Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. Methods: This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes. Discussion: The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams. Trial registration: Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number NCT05803473 on March 27th 2023.

Background Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. Methods This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes. Discussion The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams., Background: Worldwide, up to 20 % of hospitalised patients have diabetes mellitus. In-hospital dysglycaemia increases patient mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Improved in-hospital diabetes management strategies are needed. The DIATEC trial investigates the effects of an in-hospital diabetes team and operational insulin titration algorithms based on either continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data or standard point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. Methods: This is a two-armed, two-site, prospective randomised open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial. We recruit non-critically ill hospitalised general medical and orthopaedic patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal, prandial, and correctional insulin (N = 166). In both arms, patients are monitored by POC glucose testing and diabetes management is done by ward nurses guided by in-hospital diabetes teams. In one of the arms, patients are monitored in addition to POC glucose testing by telemetric CGM viewed by the in-hospital diabetes teams only. The in-hospital diabetes teams have operational algorithms to titrate insulin in both arms. Outcomes are in-hospital glycaemic and clinical outcomes. Discussion: The DIATEC trial will show the glycaemic and clinical effects of in-hospital CGM handled by in-hospital diabetes teams with access to operational insulin titration algorithms in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. The DIATEC trial seeks to identify which hospitalised patients will benefit from CGM and in-hospital diabetes teams compared to POC glucose testing. This is essential information to optimise the use of healthcare resources before broadly implementing in-hospital CGM and diabetes teams. Trial registration: Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with identification number NCT05803473 on March 27th 2023.

INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of- care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen based on both short- and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen. FUNDING. none. TRIAL REGISTRATION. not relevant., INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of-care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen based on both short-and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen.

I Danmark formodes 10-15% af indlagte patienter at have diabetes [1]. Adskillige faktorer påvirker glukosemetabolismen under indlæggelse. Øget insulinbehov ses bl.a. ved opblussen i kronisk sygdom, infektioner og feber, immobilisering, glukokortikoidbehandling og kirurgi. Faste sænker derimod insulinbehovet, mens nyre- og leverpåvirkning ændrer omsætningen af oralt givet antidiabetika og GLP-1-receptoragonister. I et travlt og subspecialiseret sundhedsvæsen kan håndteringen af disse hurtigt omskiftelige faktorer være udfordrende. Dette kan resultere i dysglykæmi, dvs. hypoglykæmi, hyperglykæmi og blodsukkerudsving, kaldet glykæmisk variabilitet. Dysglykæmien er forbundet med øget indlæggelsestid, øget mortalitet og komplikationer under hospitalsindlæggelse, Diabetes and hyperglycaemia are frequent diagnoses in the hospital, and in-hospital hyperglycaemia isassociated with adverse clinical outcomes. Insulin is the preferred treatment for in-hospital hyperglycaemia. This review summarises the management of hyperglycaemia in Danish hospitals. In Denmark, sliding-scaleinsulin is often applied with the addition of basal insulin after 1-2 days with hyperglycaemia which differs frominternational guidelines recommending a basal-bolus regimen. The optimal non-intensive care unit glucosetargets, the safety and efficacy level of non-insulin antidiabetic agents, and continuous glucose monitoring aresubjects of further research.

INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of-care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basalplus regimen based on both short and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen

Diabetes and hyperglycaemia are frequent diagnoses in the hospital, and in-hospital hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Insulin is the preferred treatment for in-hospital hyperglycaemia. This review summarises the management of hyperglycaemia in Danish hospitals. In Denmark, sliding-scale insulin is often applied with the addition of basal insulin after 1-2 days with hyperglycaemia which differs from international guidelines recommending a basal-bolus regimen. The optimal non-intensive care unit glucose targets, the safety and efficacy level of non-insulin antidiabetic agents, and continuous glucose monitoring are subjects of further research.

INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of- care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen based on both short- and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen. FUNDING. none. TRIAL REGISTRATION. not relevant., INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of-care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen based on both short-and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen.

This is a letter to the editor on the article "Anti-osteoporotic treatment after hip fracture remains alarmingly low" Dan Med J 2022;69(10):A01220010.

I Danmark formodes 10-15% af indlagte patienter at have diabetes [1]. Adskillige faktorer påvirker glukosemetabolismen under indlæggelse. Øget insulinbehov ses bl.a. ved opblussen i kronisk sygdom, infektioner og feber, immobilisering, glukokortikoidbehandling og kirurgi. Faste sænker derimod insulinbehovet, mens nyre- og leverpåvirkning ændrer omsætningen af oralt givet antidiabetika og GLP-1-receptoragonister. I et travlt og subspecialiseret sundhedsvæsen kan håndteringen af disse hurtigt omskiftelige faktorer være udfordrende. Dette kan resultere i dysglykæmi, dvs. hypoglykæmi, hyperglykæmi og blodsukkerudsving, kaldet glykæmisk variabilitet. Dysglykæmien er forbundet med øget indlæggelsestid, øget mortalitet og komplikationer under hospitalsindlæggelse, Diabetes and hyperglycaemia are frequent diagnoses in the hospital, and in-hospital hyperglycaemia isassociated with adverse clinical outcomes. Insulin is the preferred treatment for in-hospital hyperglycaemia. This review summarises the management of hyperglycaemia in Danish hospitals. In Denmark, sliding-scaleinsulin is often applied with the addition of basal insulin after 1-2 days with hyperglycaemia which differs frominternational guidelines recommending a basal-bolus regimen. The optimal non-intensive care unit glucosetargets, the safety and efficacy level of non-insulin antidiabetic agents, and continuous glucose monitoring aresubjects of further research.

INTRODUCTION. Insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, which insulin regimen to prefer is debated. We described Danish regional guidelines on the management of non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM and compared them with international guidelines. METHODS. The Danish regional guidelines have been obtained via Danish regional web portals and by request to the regions. The guidelines were reviewed independently by the authors of this article to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of their contents. RESULTS. The recommended treatment of in-hospital hyperglycaemia is sliding scale insulin (SSI) in all five Danish regions. Insulin dosing by SSI is adjusted to bodyweight in two of the five regions. The recommended number of daily glucose point-of-care tests ranges from 4-8 to reach glucose levels of 5-10 mmol/l (90-180 mg/dl). In all regions, continuation of out-hospital insulin and non-insulin antidiabetic drugs is recommended; however, the latter is paused on wide indications. CONCLUSIONS. In-hospital hyperglycaemia for non-critically ill hospitalised patients with T2DM is treated by SSI, based on short-acting insulin, in all five Danish regions. International guidelines recommend a basal-bolus or basalplus regimen based on both short and long-acting insulin for most hospitalised non-critically ill patients with diabetes and discourage SSI. Danish regions should consider replacing SSI with a basal-bolus or basal-plus regimen

Diabetes and hyperglycaemia are frequent diagnoses in the hospital, and in-hospital hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Insulin is the preferred treatment for in-hospital hyperglycaemia. This review summarises the management of hyperglycaemia in Danish hospitals. In Denmark, sliding-scale insulin is often applied with the addition of basal insulin after 1-2 days with hyperglycaemia which differs from international guidelines recommending a basal-bolus regimen. The optimal non-intensive care unit glucose targets, the safety and efficacy level of non-insulin antidiabetic agents, and continuous glucose monitoring are subjects of further research.

Background Glycemic variability (GV) has only been sparsely studied in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to quantify in-hospital GV in CAP patients, including determining the impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glucocorticoid (GC) treatment on GV. Methods This is a prospective cohort study of CAP patients (N = 40) with or without T2DM and treated or not with GCs. The primary endpoint was GV measured as glucose standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGE) based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Analysis of glucose data was split into daytime and nighttime when possible. Results Patients included had a mean age of 74 (range 55 to 91) years. SD (95%CI) increased by a factor of 1.93 (1.40 to 2.66) and 2.29 (1.38 to 3.81) in patients with T2DM and not treated with GCs during the daytime and the nighttime, respectively (both P < 0.01), and by a factor of 1.42 (1.04 to 1.97) in patients treated with GCs but without T2DM during the daytime (P = 0.031) compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs. CV (95%CI) increased by 5.1 (0.0 to 10.1) and 8.1 (1.0 to 15.2) percentage points during the daytime and the nighttime, respectively, in patients with T2DM and not treated with GCs compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs (P = 0.046 and P = 0.026, respectively). PPGE (95% CI) increased during lunch by 2.5 (0.7 to 4.3) mmol/L (45 (13 to 77) mg/dL) in patients with T2DM and treated with GCs compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs (P = 0.018). Conclusions CAP patients receiving GCs, especially those with T2DM, are at great risk of developing high GV and therefore require clinical attention to mitigate GV. This applies particularly during the daytime. Results support the 1 to 2-h post-lunch screening procedure for glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in patients without diabetes. SD was positively correlated with hospital length

Background Glycemic variability (GV) has only been sparsely studied in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to quantify in-hospital GV in CAP patients, including determining the impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glucocorticoid (GC) treatment on GV. Methods This is a prospective cohort study of CAP patients (N = 40) with or without T2DM and treated or not with GCs. The primary endpoint was GV measured as glucose standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGE) based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Analysis of glucose data was split into daytime and nighttime when possible. Results Patients included had a mean age of 74 (range 55 to 91) years. SD (95%CI) increased by a factor of 1.93 (1.40 to 2.66) and 2.29 (1.38 to 3.81) in patients with T2DM and not treated with GCs during the daytime and the nighttime, respectively (both P < 0.01), and by a factor of 1.42 (1.04 to 1.97) in patients treated with GCs but without T2DM during the daytime (P = 0.031) compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs. CV (95%CI) increased by 5.1 (0.0 to 10.1) and 8.1 (1.0 to 15.2) percentage points during the daytime and the nighttime, respectively, in patients with T2DM and not treated with GCs compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs (P = 0.046 and P = 0.026, respectively). PPGE (95% CI) increased during lunch by 2.5 (0.7 to 4.3) mmol/L (45 (13 to 77) mg/dL) in patients with T2DM and treated with GCs compared to patients without T2DM and not treated with GCs (P = 0.018). Conclusions CAP patients receiving GCs, especially those with T2DM, are at great risk of developing high GV and therefore require clinical attention to mitigate GV. This applies particularly during the daytime. Results support the 1 to 2-h post-lunch screening procedure for glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia in patients without diabetes. SD was positively correlated with hospital length

Objective: To investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes mellitus and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with better glycemic outcomes and fewer patient health care worker contacts compared to blood glucose monitoring by traditional point-of-care (POC) glucose testing and to investigate the user aspect of implementing a CGM-system in-hospital.Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled exploratory trial was performed on hospitalized and isolated patients with diabetes and COVID-19 from May 2020 until February 2021 at Nordsj AE llands Hospital, Denmark. Participants were randomized to nonblinded telemetric CGM (as the only glucose monitoring method) or traditional POC glucose testing + blinded CGM. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR) based on CGM data in both groups. A questionnaire about the user aspect of the CGM system was answered by health care personnel (HCP).Results: We included 64 participants in the analysis, 31 in the CGM group and 33 in the POC glucose group. TIR median was 46% for the CGM group and 68% for the POC glucose group (P = 0.368). The mean glucose value for the CGM group was 11.1 and 10.8 mmol/L in the POC glucose group (P = 0.372). CGM was associated with fewer POC glucose measurements (P < 0.001). Out of 30 HCPs, 28 preferred telemetric CGM over POC glucose testing.Conclusion: Remote glucose monitoring by CGM did not improve glycemic outcomes compared to traditional POC glucose testing, but was associated with fewer patient-personnel contacts, saving time for HCPs performing diabetes-related tasks. Most HCPs preferred CGM. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT04430608).

Objective: Gustatory sweating (GS) is characterized by profuse sweating during or immediately after ingestion of food and is known as a complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of GS and to characterize the sweating in a cohort of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) as compared with a control group. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 665 outpatients with T1DM and 505 outpatients with T2DM filled in an 8-point questionnaire about GS. Answers were paired with medical data from the electronic patient records to explore associations with DM complications. The control group consisted of 1158 persons without DM answering the same questionnaire in an online version. Results: In people with T1DM and T2DM, the prevalence of GS was 10% (95% CI 7%–12%) and 13% (95% CI 10%–16%), respectively. In the control group, the prevalence of GS was 5% (95% CI 3%–6%). Most commonly, people sweat on the face and/or head and upper body with a duration of 10–30 min albeit in the control group <10 min. In patients with T1DM, increased HbA1c was associated with GS (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.05–1.6], p =.016), and in T2DM, younger age (OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.92–0.99), p =.006), presence of severe peripheral neuropathy (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.04–5.2], p =.039) and absence of proliferative retinopathy were associated with GS (OR 0.22 [95% CI 0.07–0.71], p =.011). Conclusion: We found the prevalence of gustatory sweating of 11% in a hospital-based cohort of patients with T1DM and T2DM. This was twice as high as in non-diabetic control persons. Associations between GS and known diabetes complications could only be demonstrated in T2DM. Compared with a control group without DM, odds for GS are higher in people with DM and age >45.

Objective: Gustatory sweating (GS) is characterized by profuse sweating during or immediately after ingestion of food and is known as a complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of GS and to characterize the sweating in a cohort of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM and T2DM) as compared with a control group. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 665 outpatients with T1DM and 505 outpatients with T2DM filled in an 8-point questionnaire about GS. Answers were paired with medical data from the electronic patient records to explore associations with DM complications. The control group consisted of 1158 persons without DM answering the same questionnaire in an online version. Results: In people with T1DM and T2DM, the prevalence of GS was 10% (95% CI 7%–12%) and 13% (95% CI 10%–16%), respectively. In the control group, the prevalence of GS was 5% (95% CI 3%–6%). Most commonly, people sweat on the face and/or head and upper body with a duration of 10–30 min albeit in the control group <10 min. In patients with T1DM, increased HbA1c was associated with GS (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.05–1.6], p =.016), and in T2DM, younger age (OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.92–0.99), p =.006), presence of severe peripheral neuropathy (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.04–5.2], p =.039) and absence of proliferative retinopathy were associated with GS (OR 0.22 [95% CI 0.07–0.71], p =.011). Conclusion: We found the prevalence of gustatory sweating of 11% in a hospital-based cohort of patients with T1DM and T2DM. This was twice as high as in non-diabetic control persons. Associations between GS and known diabetes complications could only be demonstrated in T2DM. Compared with a control group without DM, odds for GS are higher in people with DM and age >45.

Objectives: Patients with diabetes are - compared to people without diabetes - at increased risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19 related pneumonia during hospitalization. We aim to investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in quarantined hospitalized patients with diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or another contagious infection can be successfully implemented and is associated with better glycaemic control than usual blood glucose monitoring (finger prick method) and fewer patient-health care worker contacts. Furthermore, we will assess whether glucose variables are associated with the clinical outcome. The hypothesis is that by using remote CGM to monitor glucose levels of COVID-19 infected patients and patients with other contagious infections with diabetes, we can still provide satisfactory (and maybe even better) in-hospital diabetes management despite patients being quarantined. Furthermore, the number of patient-personnel contacts can be lowered compared to standard monitoring with finger-prick glucose. This could potentially reduce the risk of transmitting contagious diseases from the patient to other people and reduces the use of PPE’s. Improved glucose control may reduce the increased risk of poor clinical outcomes associated with combined diabetes and infection. Trial Design: This is a single centre, open label, exploratory, randomised, controlled, 2-arm parallel group (1:1 ratio), controlled trial. Participants: The trial population is patients with diabetes (both type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, newly discovered diabetes that is not classified yet, and all other forms of diabetes) admitted to Nordsjællands Hospital that are quarantined due to COVID-19 infection or another infection. Inclusion criteria: 1. Hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection by real-time PCR or another validated method OR hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 diagnosis and quarantined at time of inclusion. 2. A documented clinically relevant h

Background: Glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus (GIDM) is a serious side effect of glucocorticoid (GC) treatment that is associated with both increased mortality and morbidity, but not all patients develop GIDM when treated with GC. The reason is not known, and clinical risk factors predictive of type 2 diabetes do not predict GIDM. Previous metabolomics studies have found specific metabolic disturbances prior to clinical type 2 diabetes. This could also be true for GIDM. The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether distinct metabolic patterns in patients treated with high dose GC can predict development of GIDM. Material and methods: Serum from 116 patients about to be treated with or in the first days of treatment with high-dose GC (>100 mg prednisolone equivalent) was analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based nontargeted metabolomics. Clinical data were collected at baseline and through a 3-week follow-up period. 52 patients developed GIDM and 64 did not (control group). A logistic regression model and a predictive model was build and differences in the metabolome due to treatment with GC was tested in serum from patients without GC treatment (n=6) and patients with GC treatment (n=107). Results and discussion: At univariate analysis three metabolites were associated with the development of GIDM. These metabolites could not be annotated to specific metabolites. A multi-metabolite approach could not predict GIDM, and this is different from previous findings in T2DM. This supports the hypothesis that the etiology of T2DM and GIDM is different. The biological significance of our finding remains unknown, but with the rapid development in the field of metabolomics and databases with increasing numbers of characterized metabolites, these metabolites may be identified. Conclusion: Our data indicate that the typical metabolic shifts in T2DM are not the same in GIDM. This supports the hypothesis that GIDM may have a pathophysi

BACKGROUND: A well-known metabolic side effect from treatment with glucocorticoids is glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus (GIDM). Guidelines on the management of GIDM in hospitalized patients (in the non-critical care setting), recommend initiation of insulin therapy. The scientific basis and evidence for superiority of insulin therapy over other glucose lowering therapies is however poor and associated with episodes of both hypo- and hyperglycaemia. There is an unmet need for an easier, safe and convenient therapy for glucocorticoid-induced diabetes.METHODS: EANITIATE is a Danish, open, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1:1), parallel group study in patients with new-onset diabetes following treatment with glucocorticoids (> 20 mg equivalent prednisolone dose/day) with blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE design). Included patients are randomized to either a Sodium-Glucose-Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or neutral protamin Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and followed for 30 days. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) will provide data for the primary endpoint (mean daily blood glucose) and on glucose fluctuations in the two treatment arms. Secondary endpoints are patient related outcomes, hypoglycaemia, means and measures of variation for all values and for time specific glucose values. This is a non-inferiority study with the intent to demonstrate that treatment with empagliflozin is not inferior to treatment with NPH insulin when it comes to glycemic control and side effects.DISCUSSION: This novel approach to management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia has not been tested before and if SGLT2 inhibition with empaglifozin compared to NPH-insulin is a safe, effective and resource sparing treatment for GIDM, it has the potential to improve the situation for affected patients and have health economic benefits.TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu no.: 2018-002640-82. Prospectively registered November 20th. 2018. Dat

Background: Glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus (GIDM) is a serious side effect of glucocorticoid (GC) treatment that is associated with both increased mortality and morbidity, but not all patients develop GIDM when treated with GC. The reason is not known, and clinical risk factors predictive of type 2 diabetes do not predict GIDM. Previous metabolomics studies have found specific metabolic disturbances prior to clinical type 2 diabetes. This could also be true for GIDM. The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether distinct metabolic patterns in patients treated with high dose GC can predict development of GIDM. Material and methods: Serum from 116 patients about to be treated with or in the first days of treatment with high-dose GC (>100 mg prednisolone equivalent) was analyzed with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based nontargeted metabolomics. Clinical data were collected at baseline and through a 3-week follow-up period. 52 patients developed GIDM and 64 did not (control group). A logistic regression model and a predictive model was build and differences in the metabolome due to treatment with GC was tested in serum from patients without GC treatment (n=6) and patients with GC treatment (n=107). Results and discussion: At univariate analysis three metabolites were associated with the development of GIDM. These metabolites could not be annotated to specific metabolites. A multi-metabolite approach could not predict GIDM, and this is different from previous findings in T2DM. This supports the hypothesis that the etiology of T2DM and GIDM is different. The biological significance of our finding remains unknown, but with the rapid development in the field of metabolomics and databases with increasing numbers of characterized metabolites, these metabolites may be identified. Conclusion: Our data indicate that the typical metabolic shifts in T2DM are not the same in GIDM. This supports the hypothesis that GIDM may have a pathophysi

Objectives: Patients with diabetes are - compared to people without diabetes - at increased risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19 related pneumonia during hospitalization. We aim to investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in quarantined hospitalized patients with diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or another contagious infection can be successfully implemented and is associated with better glycaemic control than usual blood glucose monitoring (finger prick method) and fewer patient-health care worker contacts. Furthermore, we will assess whether glucose variables are associated with the clinical outcome. The hypothesis is that by using remote CGM to monitor glucose levels of COVID-19 infected patients and patients with other contagious infections with diabetes, we can still provide satisfactory (and maybe even better) in-hospital diabetes management despite patients being quarantined. Furthermore, the number of patient-personnel contacts can be lowered compared to standard monitoring with finger-prick glucose. This could potentially reduce the risk of transmitting contagious diseases from the patient to other people and reduces the use of PPE’s. Improved glucose control may reduce the increased risk of poor clinical outcomes associated with combined diabetes and infection. Trial Design: This is a single centre, open label, exploratory, randomised, controlled, 2-arm parallel group (1:1 ratio), controlled trial. Participants: The trial population is patients with diabetes (both type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, newly discovered diabetes that is not classified yet, and all other forms of diabetes) admitted to Nordsjællands Hospital that are quarantined due to COVID-19 infection or another infection. Inclusion criteria: 1. Hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection by real-time PCR or another validated method OR hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 diagnosis and quarantined at time of inclusion. 2. A documented clinically relevant h

BACKGROUND: A well-known metabolic side effect from treatment with glucocorticoids is glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus (GIDM). Guidelines on the management of GIDM in hospitalized patients (in the non-critical care setting), recommend initiation of insulin therapy. The scientific basis and evidence for superiority of insulin therapy over other glucose lowering therapies is however poor and associated with episodes of both hypo- and hyperglycaemia. There is an unmet need for an easier, safe and convenient therapy for glucocorticoid-induced diabetes.METHODS: EANITIATE is a Danish, open, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1:1), parallel group study in patients with new-onset diabetes following treatment with glucocorticoids (> 20 mg equivalent prednisolone dose/day) with blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE design). Included patients are randomized to either a Sodium-Glucose-Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or neutral protamin Hagedorn (NPH) insulin and followed for 30 days. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) will provide data for the primary endpoint (mean daily blood glucose) and on glucose fluctuations in the two treatment arms. Secondary endpoints are patient related outcomes, hypoglycaemia, means and measures of variation for all values and for time specific glucose values. This is a non-inferiority study with the intent to demonstrate that treatment with empagliflozin is not inferior to treatment with NPH insulin when it comes to glycemic control and side effects.DISCUSSION: This novel approach to management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia has not been tested before and if SGLT2 inhibition with empaglifozin compared to NPH-insulin is a safe, effective and resource sparing treatment for GIDM, it has the potential to improve the situation for affected patients and have health economic benefits.TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu no.: 2018-002640-82. Prospectively registered November 20th. 2018. Dat

Background: Stroke is the second most common cause of death worldwide. Only one treatment for acute ischemic stroke is currently available, thrombolysis with rt-PA, but it is limited in its use. Many efforts have been invested in order to find additive treatments, without success.A multitude of reasons for the translational problems from mouse experimental stroke to clinical trials probably exists, including infarct size estimations around the peak time of edema formation. Furthermore, edema is a more prominent feature of stroke in mice than in humans, because of the tendency to produce larger infarcts with more substantial edema. Purpose: This paper will give an overview of previous studies of experimental mouse stroke, and correlate survival time to peak time of edema formation. Furthermore, investigations of whether the included studies corrected the infarct measurements for edema and a comparison of correction methods will be discussed. Method: Relevant terms were searched in the National Library of Medicine PubMed database. A method for classification of infarct measurement methods was made using a naming convention. Conclusion: Our study shows that infarct size estimations are often performed around the peak time of edema, with a median of 24. h. Most studies do consider edema formation, however, there is no consensus on what method to use to correct for edema. Furthermore, investigations into neuroprotective drugs should use longer survival times to ensure completion of the investigated process. Our findings indicate a need for more research in this area, and establishment of common correction methodology.

Patologi er læren om sygdommes manifestationer i væv og celler, herunder sygdommes årsager og mekanismer, og er en central del af undervisningen på en lang række studier om menneskers og dyrs sygdomme. Imod slutningen af 00’erne kom de første præparatscannere til Danmark, og for faget almen patologi på Københavns Universitet blev dette udnyttet til at forbedre og modernisere undervisningen. Faget baserer nu sin undervisning på digitalisering og anvendelse af digitale medier, og både undervisning og eksamen i vævs- og celleforandringer foregår nu med digitale hjælpemidler. I løbet af de sidste fem år er alle vævspræparater digitaliserede, og sideløbende hermed er den elektroniske platform for faget blevet udbygget. Fagets egne forelæsninger videooptages og streames, forelæsninger udført af internationalt anerkendte undervisere på udenlandske universiteter transmitteres live, og en patologi-blog øger studerendes adgang til underviserne. Til selvstudium udvikles multiple choice-tests baseret på mikroskopipræparater samt korte filmklip, der gennemgår mikroskopiforandringerne. Digitale spørgeskemaer har vist, at disse tiltag har forbedret undervisningen og øget studentertilfredsheden ganske betydeligt. Denne oversigtsartikel vil præsentere de digitale tiltag og deres betydning for undervisningen i patologi på Københavns Universitet.