ABSTRACT
We report a case of acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. A 60-year-old male with chronic sinusitis and tobacco use presented to the emergency department (ED) with an acute onset of dyspnea, non-productive cough, and fever. A diagnosis of moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection with bacterial superinfection was made. He was discharged on antibiotic therapy. One month later, due to the persistence of symptoms, he returned to the ED. At this time, blood analysis showed eosinophilia and a chest computed tomography scan showed bilateral diffuse infiltrative changes. He was admitted to the hospital for the study of eosinophilic disease. A lung biopsy was performed, which showed eosinophilic pneumonia. Corticotherapy was started with symptoms and peripheral eosinophilia resolution, and imaging improvement.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring remains the most used testing form in hospitals and allows for "points in range (PIR)" metric calculation. This study was conceived to evaluate the metabolic control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at a hospital through PIR metrics. Methods This was an observational cross-sectional study conducted on October 9, 2020, that included non-critical adults admitted to Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto (except pregnant/postpartum women) with DM under CBG monitoring and a minimum of 24 hours of hospitalization. Glycemic control was evaluated by previous day CBG monitoring. Results The study sample consisted of 110 patients with DM (93.6% type 2) with a median number of CBG tests of 4.00 (1.00) and a median CBG of 166.20 (69.41) mg/dL, SD 41.93 ± 27.20 mg/dL, and variation coefficient of 22.56 ± 12.51%. Points below range were 0.5%, with 0% below 54 mg/dL. The points in ranges 70-140 mg/dL and 140-180 mg/dL were 32.8% and 22.0%, respectively, and the total number of patients with all points in range 70-180 mg/dL was 19 (17.3%), with only 3 (2.7%) having all points in range 140-180 mg/dL and 10 (9.1%) in range 70-140 mg/dL. Regarding points above range (PAR), 29.9% and 14.8% points were at levels 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, respectively, and 15 (13.6%) patients had all points above 180 mg/dL. Correlations were identified between PAR and the total number of CBG assessments (ρ = 0.689, p < 0.001). Conclusion We conclude that in-hospital glycemic control remains suboptimal: only few have adequate control according to the PIR metrics despite low glycemic variability. PIR metrics are a new, valuable, simple and valid way to take better advantage of CBG monitoring at no added cost.