No abstract

Introduction Computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) programs for malignancy risk stratification from ultrasound (US) imaging of thyroid nodules are being validated both experimentally and in real-world practice. However, they have not been tested for reliability in analyzing difficult or unclear images. Methods US images with indeterminate characteristics were evaluated by five observers with different experience in US examination and by a commercial CAD program. The nodules, on which the observers widely agreed, were considered concordant and, if there was little agreement, not concordant or difficult to assess. The diagnostic performance of the readers and the CAD program was calculated and compared in both groups of nodule images. Results In the group of concordant thyroid nodules (n = 37), the clinicians and the CAD system obtained similar levels of accuracy (77.0% vs 74.2%, respectively; P = 0.7) and no differences were found in sensitivity (SEN) (95.0% vs 87.5%, P = 0.2), specificity (SPE) (45.5 vs 49.4, respectively; P = 0.7), positive predictive value (PPV) (75.2% vs 77.7%, respectively; P = 0.8), nor negative predictive value (NPV) (85.6 vs 77.7, respectively; P = 0.3). When analyzing the non-concordant nodules (n = 43), the CAD system presented a decrease in accuracy of 4.2%, which was significantly lower than that observed by the experts (19.9%, P = 0.02). Conclusions Clinical observers are similar to the CAD system in the US assessment of the risk of thyroid nodules. However, the AI system for thyroid nodules AmCAD-UT® showed more reliability in the analysis of unclear or misleading images.

Background: The basal–bolus insulin regimen is recommended in hospitalized patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), but has an increased risk of hypoglycemia. We aimed to compare dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-i) and basal–bolus insulin glycemic outcomes in hospitalized type 2 DM patients. Methods and patients: Our prospective randomized study included 102 elderly T2DM patients (82 ± 9 years, HbA1c 6.6% ± 1.9). Glycemic control: A variability coefficient assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (Free Style® sensor), mean insulin dose and hypoglycemia rates obtained with the two treatments were analyzed. Results: No differences were found between groups in glycemic control (mean daily glycemia during the first 10 days: 152.6 ± 38.5 vs. 154.2 ± 26.3 mg/dL; p = 0.8). The total doses Kg/day were 0.40 vs. 0.20, respectively (p < 0.001). A lower number of hypoglycemic events (9% vs. 15%; p < 0.04) and lower glycemic coefficient of variation (22% vs. 28%; p < 0.0002) were observed in the basal–DPP4-i compared to the basal–bolus regimen group. Conclusions: Treatment of inpatient hyperglycemia with basal insulin plus DPP4-i is an effective and safe regimen in old subjects with T2DM, with a similar mean daily glucose concentration, but lower glycemic variability and fewer hypoglycemic episodes compared to the basal bolus insulin regimen.

IntroductionDiabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperglycemia are important risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to analyze the factors associated with the composite outcome of the necessity of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) in subjects with severe COVID-19 infection treated with dexamethasone comparing patients with DM vs. patients without DM.Research design and methodsAn observational retrospective cohort study was performed, including hospitalized subjects with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥18 years old with severe COVID-19 disease requiring daily intravenous 6 mg dexamethasone treatment for 10 days. Exclusion criteria were: &lt;18 years old, non-severe illness and/or patients in charge of ICU. Variables related to clinical and analytical parameters, glycemic control, acquired-hospital superinfections, mortality, IMV requirement, ICU admission and length of stay were included.ResultsTwo hundred and nine individuals with COVID-19 disease treated with dexamethasone were included. One hundred twenty-five out of these subjects (59.8%) were patients with DM. Overall, from the 209 subjects, 66 (31.6%) required IMV or were admitted to the ICU, with significant differences between patients with DM (n=50) vs. patients without DM (n=16) (76% vs. 24%, p=0.002). Among the group of subjects with DM (n=125), those who required IMV or were admitted to the ICU showed higher serum concentrations of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, D-dimer, ferritin and pro-calcitonin and significantly lower serum concentrations of albumin compared to those who did not require IMV or were not admitted to the ICU. Besides, between these two groups of patients with DM, we observed no differences in glycemic parameters, including median capillary blood glucose values, glycosylated hemoglobin, coefficient of variability and hypoglycemic episodes. In the multinomial analysis, factors independently associated with the composite outcome of IMV or admission to the ICU in the insulin-treated group were the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2 score (OR 1.55 [1.17-2.17], p=0.005) and the presence of hospital-acquired superinfections (OR 35.21 [5.11-386.99], p=0.001).ConclusionsIn our study, parameters related to glycemic control were not associated with IMV requirement nor admission to the ICU in patients with DM and severe COVID-19 disease receiving daily 6 mg of dexamethasone for 10 days. However, hospital-acquired superinfections and disease severity at admission were independent factors associated with this composite outcome.