RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Despite the important diagnostic role of peripheral blood morphology, cell classification is subjective. Automated image-processing systems (AIS) provide more accurate and objective morphological evaluation. The aims of this multicenter study were the evaluation of the intra and inter-laboratory variation between different AIS in cell pre-classification and after reclassification, compared with manual optical microscopy, the reference method. METHODS: Six peripheral blood samples were included in this study, for each sample, 70 May-Grunwald and Giemsa stained PB smears were prepared from each specimen and 10 slides were delivered to the seven laboratories involved. Smears were processed by both optical microscopy (OM) and AIS. In addition, the assessment times of both methods were recorded. RESULTS: Within-laboratory Reproducibility ranged between 4.76% and 153.78%; between-laboratory Precision ranged between 2.10% and 82.2%, while Total Imprecision ranged between 5.21% and 20.60%. The relative Bland Altman bias ranged between -0.01% and 20.60%. The mean of assessment times were 326 ± 110 s and 191 ± 68 s for AIS post reclassification and OM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AIS can be helpful when the number of cell counted are low and can give advantages in terms of efficiency, objectivity and time saving in the morphological analysis of blood cells. They can also help in the interpretation of some morphological features and can serve as learning and investigation tools.
Asunto(s)
Microscopía , Respeto , Humanos , Microscopía/métodos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador , Células SanguíneasRESUMEN
Increasing proportions of patients with diabetes use continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy mostly due to its clinical efficacy and flexibility for insulin dosing and adjustments. Some challenges are nevertheless associated with this technology. A key and underlooked component of CSII technical difficulties is the subcutaneous catheter used to infuse insulin. Several adverse events (AEs) have been experienced by patients in relation to catheters, such as blockage, kinking, and insertion site reactions, including irritation, infections, lipohypertrophies etc., all of which could compromise the metabolic control. With the objective of minimizing these AEs, recommendations for changing catheters every 2-3 days have historically been provided by manufacturers based on reports derived from small studies and anecdotal data. The aim of this review was to provide an updated analysis of current recommendations and patients' practices in relation to frequency of catheter change. Our main findings are: (1) adequately designed and powered studies investigating optimal catheter wearing time are still lacking; (2) increasing catheter wearing time is generally associated with increased frequency of catheter AEs; (3) however, interpatient variability is large, with some individuals needing to change their catheters every 2-3 days, whereas others probably being able to keep them in place for longer periods without problems. Further research is thus warranted to provide more solid and evidence-based recommendations while exploring personalized approaches at the same time. Increasing catheter wear life without significant side effects is an important goal to simplify CSII therapy and reduce its associated costs and burdens.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina/efectos adversos , Lipodistrofia/etiología , Tejido Subcutáneo/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The aim of this randomized four-way cross-over study was to examine the effect of added protein and/or fat in standard meals with a fixed carbohydrate content on postprandial glucose control with closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants (n = 15) consumed breakfast meals with a fixed carbohydrate content (75 ± 1 g) and added protein and/or fat (35 ± 2 g): (1) carbohydrate-only (standard), (2) high protein (HP), (3) high fat (HF) and (4) high fat + protein (HFHP). The closed-loop insulin delivery algorithm generated insulin bolus and infusion rates. The addition of fat, protein or both did not impact 5-hour post-meal sensor glucose area under the curve (AUC) (main outcome), mean sensor glucose or glycaemic peak as compared with a standard meal (P > 0.05). However, time to glycaemic peak was delayed by 40 minutes (P = 0.03) and 5-hour post-meal basal insulin requirements were 39% higher (P = 0.04) with an HFHP meal compared with a standard meal. In conclusion, in the context of closed-loop insulin delivery, protein and/or fat meal content affects the timing of postprandial glycaemic peak, insulin requirements and late glycaemic excursion, without impacting overall 5-hour AUC.