The high burden of inpatient diabetes mellitus: the Melbourne Public Hospitals Diabetes Inpatient Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of diabetes in inpatients in Melbourne hospitals. DESIGN: Point prevalence survey of all inpatients in each hospital on a single day between 30 November 2010 and 22 November 2012. SETTING: 11 hospitals in metropolitan Melbourne including community, secondary and tertiary hospitals and one aged care and rehabilitation centre. PARTICIPANTS: 2308 adult inpatients in all wards apart from intensive care, emergency, obstetrics and psychiatry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Point prevalence of self-reported diabetes, details of current medication, self-reported frequency of complications. RESULTS: Diabetes status was obtained in 2273 of 2308 inpatients (98.5%). Of these, 562 (24.7%) had diabetes (95% CI, 22.9%-26.5%). Diabetes prevalence ranged from 15.7% to 35.1% in different hospitals (P < 0.001). Patients with diabetes were older, heavier and more likely to be taking lipid-lowering, antihypertensive and blood-thinning medications. Of 388 patients with complete medication information, 270 (69.6%) were taking oral hypoglycaemic agents alone or in combination with insulin, 158 (40.7%) were treated with insulin (67 [17.3%] with insulin alone) and 51 (13.1%) were not taking medication for diabetes. The frequency of diabetes complications was very high: 207/290 (71.4%) for any microvascular complication, 275/527 (52.2%) for any macrovascular complication and 227/276 (82.2%) for any complication. CONCLUSION: The high burden of diabetes in Melbourne hospital inpatients has major implications for patient health and health care expenditure. Optimising care of these high-risk patients has the potential to decrease inpatient morbidity and length of stay as well as preventing or delaying future complications. A formal Australian national audit of inpatient diabetes would determine its true prevalence and consequences, allowing rational planning to deal with shortcomings in its management.

The prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteopaenia in juvenile rheumatic disease: A randomised double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children and young people (CYP) with chronic rheumatic conditions; Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Juvenile Vasculitis, treated with steroids, have low bone density, increased fracture risk and are likely to have suboptimal peak bone mass. There is currently no evidence base for the management of steroid-induced bone loss in children with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We undertook a multi-centre double dummy double-blind randomised placebo controlled trial to investigate whether the bisphosphonate risedronate was superior to alfacalcidol or calcium and vitamin D supplementation in the prevention and treatment of steroid-induced osteopaenia in these children. Patients were stratified and randomised in a 1:1 ratio, into: placebo; alfacalcidol; risedronate. The primary outcome was the change in lumbar spine bone mineral density z score (LSaBMDz) measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry at one year. Secondary outcome was fracture rate. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventeen patients were recruited to the study. Seventy seven placebo, 71 alfacalcidol, and 69 risedronate. Highly statistically significant differences were observed in the change in LSaBMDz between the placebo and risedronate groups; 0.274, 95% CI (0.061, 0.487) (p < 0.001) and between the risedronate and the alfacalcidol groups; 0.326 95% CI (0.109, 0.543) (p < 0.001). The difference observed between the alfacalcidol and placebo group was not statistically significant.Highly statistically significant differences were seen in the change in Total Body Less Head aBMD-Z Score between the placebo and risedronate groups (p < 0.01) but not between the alfacalcidol and risedronate groups. No significant differences in fracture frequency, adverse or serious adverse reactions were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents receiving steroids for rheumatic diseases benefit from prophylactic treatment with bisphosphonates to increase LSaBMD. Alfacalcidol is ineffective.

Glucose Control in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Using a Medtronic Prototype Enhanced-Hybrid Closed-Loop System: A Feasibility Study.

Background: Experience from first-generation closed-loop (CL) systems informs refinements to enhance glucose control and user acceptance. A next-generation prototype enhanced-hybrid CL (E-HCL) system incorporates iterative changes to the Medtronic MiniMed 670G CL system, including automated correction boluses, lower target glucose level, and user enhancements. The aim was to explore safety, system performance, and glucose control using E-HCL in adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Twelve adults underwent this first in-human feasibility study. After a 1-week run-in using open-loop (OL), E-HCL was activated at the start of a supervised 1-week hotel phase, followed by 3 weeks free living at home. Supervised challenges included two meal interventions (unannounced and late meal bolus) and a sensor calibration intervention. Primary outcome was sensor glucose time-in-range (TIR); OL run-in and E-HCL at home were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Twelve adults (seven men; median [interquartile range] age 48 [39, 57] years; HbA1c 6.8 [6.2, 7.2]%, 51 [44, 55] mmol/mol; diabetes duration 31 [13, 41] years) completed the protocol. E-HCL resulted in greater TIR (85.3 [79.4, 88.4]% vs. 75.0 [66.6, 83.7]%, P = 0.003) and lower mean sensor glucose (123.0 [119.3, 129.6] mg/dL vs. 143.5 [135.8, 154.5] mg/dL, P = 0.002) than OL. Time spent <70 mg/dL increased using E-HCL (4.4 [3.3, 6.1]% vs. 3.0 [1.8, 3.8]%, P = 0.02) with no difference in time <54 mg/dL (P = 0.64). Time in CL was 99.98 [99.0, 100.0]%. All participants were satisfied using E-HCL. Conclusions: In adults with well-controlled HbA1c levels, a prototype E-HCL resulted in high TIR, few CL exits, and positive user experiences at the expense of increased hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL). E-HCL represents a positive step in the journey toward optimizing glucose control in people living with type 1 diabetes.

Reducing potentially fatal errors associated with high doses of insulin: a successful multifaceted multidisciplinary prevention strategy.

BACKGROUND: Insulin is a high-risk medicine which may cause significant patient harm or death when given incorrectly. A 10-fold error in administered insulin dose commonly occurs when the abbreviation 'u' is used for 'units' and subsequently misinterpreted as a 'zero.' METHOD: A multidisciplinary working party was convened and mapped insulin prescribing, dispensing and administration. All inpatient orders above 25 units for short-acting insulin and 50 units for other insulin require validation by an additional source. Educational strategies to support adherence to the guideline and product-labelling alerts were developed. RESULTS: Implementation occurred in August 2008 across the three hospital sites. In 90 weeks after implementation, there were 150 patients identified in which 200 high doses of insulin were prescribed (>25 units for short-acting insulin and 50 units for other insulin). There were eight instances where high doses of insulin were prescribed in error but were detected and rectified through the new validation process. There were 12 dosing errors that occurred, including two 10-fold dosing errors. In contrast, seven major errors resulting in excessive insulin administration were identified over a 2-year period prior to the introduction of the insulin high-dose validation system. CONCLUSION: A structured validation process was successful in reducing incorrect prescription and administration of high-dose insulin and has reduced the risk of associated fatalities or significant patient harm. Consideration should be given to adopting this process in any setting where insulin is prescribed and administered.