Physician's attitudes towards diagnosing and treating glucocorticoid induced hyperglycaemia: Sliding scale regimen is still widely used despite guidelines

AbstractAimsTreatment with glucocorticoids for neoplasms and inflammatory disorders is frequently complicated by glucocorticoid induced hyperglycaemia (GCIH). GCIH is associated with adverse outcomes and its treatment has short term and long term benefits. Currently, treatment targets and modalities depend on local protocols and habits of individual clinicians. We explored current practice of screening and treatment of GCIH in patients receiving glucocorticoid pulse therapy.MethodsA factorial survey with written case vignettes. All vignette patients received glucocorticoid pulse therapy. Other characteristics (e.g., indication for glucocorticoid therapy, pre-existent diabetes) varied. The survey was held between November 2013 and May 2014 on 2 nationwide conferences and in hospitals across The Netherlands. Pulmonologists and internists expressed their level of agreement with statements on ordering capillary glucose testing and treatment initiation.ResultsRespondents ordered screening for GCIH in 85% of vignette patients and initiated treatment in 56%. When initiating treatment, respondents opt for sliding scale insulin in 62% of patients. Sliding scale insulin was more frequently prescribed in patients with pre-existent insulin dependent diabetes (OR 2.4, CI 1.3–4.2) and by residents (vs. specialists, OR 2.1, CI 1.2–3.5). Sixty-nine percent of clinicians experienced a lack of guidelines for GCIH.ConclusionsClinicians have a strong tendency to screen for GCIH but subsequent initiation of treatment was low. Sliding scale insulin is still widely used in episodic GCIH despite evidence against its effectiveness. This may be due to lacking evidence on feasible treatment options for GCIH

Methods of Assessing Nailfold Capillaroscopy Compared to Video Capillaroscopy in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis:A Critical Review of the Literature

Introduction: Nailfolds of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) provide an opportunity to directly visualize microvascular remodeling in SSc. Nailfold video capillaroscopy (NVC) remains the gold standard for assessing nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC). However, access to NVC is limited by expense and expertise. This review aims to synthesize current research on other NFC devices compared to NVC. Methods: The literature search included the primary research of adult patients with SSc as defined by the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria. Methods of assessing NFC included stereomicroscopy/wide-field microscopy, ophthalmoscopy, dermatoscopy, smartphone devices, and digital USB microscopy. Primary outcomes included both qualitative (normal vs. abnormal nailfolds, overall pattern recognition, presence/absence of giant capillaries, hemorrhages, and abnormal morphology) and quantitative (capillary density and dimension) measures. Results: The search yielded 471 studies, of which 9 were included. Five studies compared NVC to dermatoscopy, two compared it to widefield/stereomicroscopy, one to smartphone attachments, and one to USB microscopy. In dermatoscopy studies, NVC had a higher percentage of images that were interpretable (63–77% vs. 100%), classifiable (70% vs. 84%), or gradable (70% vs. 79.3%) across three studies. Dermatoscopy had a lower sensitivity (60.2% vs. 81.6%) and higher specificity (92.5% vs. 84.6%) compared to NVC. One stereomicroscopy study found a significant difference between methods in capillary density in limited cutaneous SSc, while another found correlations in all parameters between stereomicroscopy and NVC. One smartphone lens had good agreement with NVC on abnormal capillary morphology and density. USB microscopy was able to differentiate between SSc and healthy controls using mean capillary width but not by capillary density. Discussion: A dermatoscope may serve as a more portable and affordable screening tool to identify a normal “scleroderma pattern”, and images that need further corroboration by NVC. NFC parameters reported are heterogenous and the standardization of these parameters is important, especially in non-gold-standard devices.</p

Staphylococcus aureus and Wegener's granulomatosis

Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is a form of systemic vasculitis. It is characterized by granulomatous inflammation in the upper and lower airways, vasculitis and necrotizing glomerulonephritis, and is strongly associated with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies against proteinase 3. Since the etiology of the disease is not clear, treatment, consisting of corticosteroids and immunosuppressives, is nonspecific and associated with severe side effects. Pinpointing the trigger(s) of the disease would highly improve treatment. Clinical evidence shows that an infectious agent, the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, is a risk factor for disease relapse, suggesting its involvement in the pathogenesis of WG. Here we review both clinical and experimental data that either indicate or support a role for S. aureus in WG

Methods of Assessing Nailfold Capillaroscopy Compared to Video Capillaroscopy in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis:A Critical Review of the Literature

Introduction: Nailfolds of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) provide an opportunity to directly visualize microvascular remodeling in SSc. Nailfold video capillaroscopy (NVC) remains the gold standard for assessing nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC). However, access to NVC is limited by expense and expertise. This review aims to synthesize current research on other NFC devices compared to NVC. Methods: The literature search included the primary research of adult patients with SSc as defined by the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria. Methods of assessing NFC included stereomicroscopy/wide-field microscopy, ophthalmoscopy, dermatoscopy, smartphone devices, and digital USB microscopy. Primary outcomes included both qualitative (normal vs. abnormal nailfolds, overall pattern recognition, presence/absence of giant capillaries, hemorrhages, and abnormal morphology) and quantitative (capillary density and dimension) measures. Results: The search yielded 471 studies, of which 9 were included. Five studies compared NVC to dermatoscopy, two compared it to widefield/stereomicroscopy, one to smartphone attachments, and one to USB microscopy. In dermatoscopy studies, NVC had a higher percentage of images that were interpretable (63–77% vs. 100%), classifiable (70% vs. 84%), or gradable (70% vs. 79.3%) across three studies. Dermatoscopy had a lower sensitivity (60.2% vs. 81.6%) and higher specificity (92.5% vs. 84.6%) compared to NVC. One stereomicroscopy study found a significant difference between methods in capillary density in limited cutaneous SSc, while another found correlations in all parameters between stereomicroscopy and NVC. One smartphone lens had good agreement with NVC on abnormal capillary morphology and density. USB microscopy was able to differentiate between SSc and healthy controls using mean capillary width but not by capillary density. Discussion: A dermatoscope may serve as a more portable and affordable screening tool to identify a normal “scleroderma pattern”, and images that need further corroboration by NVC. NFC parameters reported are heterogenous and the standardization of these parameters is important, especially in non-gold-standard devices.</p

Methods of Assessing Nailfold Capillaroscopy Compared to Video Capillaroscopy in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis:A Critical Review of the Literature

Introduction: Nailfolds of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) provide an opportunity to directly visualize microvascular remodeling in SSc. Nailfold video capillaroscopy (NVC) remains the gold standard for assessing nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC). However, access to NVC is limited by expense and expertise. This review aims to synthesize current research on other NFC devices compared to NVC. Methods: The literature search included the primary research of adult patients with SSc as defined by the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria. Methods of assessing NFC included stereomicroscopy/wide-field microscopy, ophthalmoscopy, dermatoscopy, smartphone devices, and digital USB microscopy. Primary outcomes included both qualitative (normal vs. abnormal nailfolds, overall pattern recognition, presence/absence of giant capillaries, hemorrhages, and abnormal morphology) and quantitative (capillary density and dimension) measures. Results: The search yielded 471 studies, of which 9 were included. Five studies compared NVC to dermatoscopy, two compared it to widefield/stereomicroscopy, one to smartphone attachments, and one to USB microscopy. In dermatoscopy studies, NVC had a higher percentage of images that were interpretable (63–77% vs. 100%), classifiable (70% vs. 84%), or gradable (70% vs. 79.3%) across three studies. Dermatoscopy had a lower sensitivity (60.2% vs. 81.6%) and higher specificity (92.5% vs. 84.6%) compared to NVC. One stereomicroscopy study found a significant difference between methods in capillary density in limited cutaneous SSc, while another found correlations in all parameters between stereomicroscopy and NVC. One smartphone lens had good agreement with NVC on abnormal capillary morphology and density. USB microscopy was able to differentiate between SSc and healthy controls using mean capillary width but not by capillary density. Discussion: A dermatoscope may serve as a more portable and affordable screening tool to identify a normal “scleroderma pattern”, and images that need further corroboration by NVC. NFC parameters reported are heterogenous and the standardization of these parameters is important, especially in non-gold-standard devices.</p