Recent orders

Hypoglycemia and Impaired Renal Function

Hypoglycemia and Impaired Renal Function

Case Study: An Elderly Patient With Hypoglycemia and Impaired Renal Function

—This case shows the importance of re-evaluating treatment regimens to address adverse effects without exacerbating other comorbidities.

This case presents an elderly man with type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function. He has recently been experiencing hypoglycemia with his current treatment regimen. The importance of re-evaluating treatment regimens to address adverse effects without exacerbating other comorbidities, such as renal dysfunction, is discussed.

Case presentation and patient assessment

An 84-year-old man with type 2 diabetes is admitted to the hospital with altered mental status and hypoglycemia. He had experienced recurring episodes of mild hypoglycemia over the previous week, which were managed with food. With this episode, however, he could not be aroused, so the family called EMS. His past medical history includes chronic lymphocytic leukemia, gout, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. Approximately 6 weeks ago, his serum creatinine increased from 1.6 mg/dL to 2.4 mg/dL following a bout of pneumonia. He had been taking glimepiride 4 mg twice daily. He admitted that he sometimes skipped the dose entirely because of hypoglycemia, and when he did so, his glucose was >200 mg/dL. His glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is 6.9%. Information and laboratory values collected at the hospital are as follows:

  • Height, 5’9”
  • Weight, 198 lb
  • BMI, 28
  • BP, 114/73 mm Hg
  • Current medications, glimepiride 4 mg BID and atorvastatin 10 mg QD
  • HbA1c, 6.9%
  • Lipids, LDL-C 45 mg/dL; HDL-C 55 mg/dL; Total-C 109 mg/dL; triglycerides 47 mg/dL
  • Serum creatinine 1.94 mg/dL

Diagnosis

The patient is found to have acceptable glycemic control, but unacceptable episodes of severe hypoglycemia. His worsening renal dysfunction and poor overall health status were likely responsible for the hypoglycemia, since he had tolerated glimepiride in the past. Hypoglycemia with his current treatment regimen was a particular concern given his age, concomitant renal disease, and other comorbidities.

Treatment

While in the hospital, the patient required a small dose of insulin glargine to control his blood glucose, 16 units.

This patient is elderly and has other comorbidities, including moderate renal impairment. Developing a treatment plan that helps maintain normal glucose levels with little or no associated hypoglycemia as well as limited complexity is important for this elderly patient.1Lastly, renal dysfunction and advanced age are two key risk factors for hypoglycemia.1-3

At discharge, the decision was made to discontinue insulin glargine and initiate oral therapy with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, given the low rates of hypoglycemia associated with this class and ease of use (ie, oral administration).1

Linagliptin 5 mg/day was prescribed at hospital discharge, and a follow-up visit was scheduled in 2 weeks. At the follow-up appointment, the patient reported that he was feeling well and eating better. He stated that his glucose ranged from 140 mg/dL to 210 mg/dL. His serum creatinine had increased to 2.4 mg/dL. He has had no hypoglycemic episodes since leaving the hospital. At this time, a small dose of insulin glargine was added to his glucose-lowering regiment (8 units), with adjustments made on an outpatient basis.

At a 6-month follow-up, the patient’s HbA1c was 6.6%. He reported that his glucose ranges from 110 mg/dL to 155 mg/dL, and he had not experienced any hypoglycemia. His serum creatinine was 1.99 mg/dL. Information and laboratory values collected during the 6-month follow-up visit are summarized here:

  • Weight, 186 lb
  • BP, 112/70 mm Hg
  • Current medications, linagliptin 5 mg/d; insulin glargine 10-14 units/day; atorvastatin 10 mg QD
  • HbA1c, 6.6%
  • Lipids, LDL-C 28 mg/dL; HDL-C 38 mg/dL; Total-C 103 mg/dL; triglycerides 73 mg/dL
  • Serum creatinine 1.99 mg/dL

Over the next 2 years, the patient’s serum creatinine fluctuated from 1.7 mg/dL to 2.5 mg/dL. He required additional chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia with small cell lymphoma. His diabetes remained stable on the same regimen of linagliptin 5 mg/day and insulin glargine 10 to 14 units/day.

Types of Reliability and Validity

Types of Reliability and Validity

Investigate an individual, standardized cognitive or academic assessment like the WISC, WJ, KTEA or WIAT and discuss the concepts listed below that you are able to find in the technical manual of the assessment:

  • Test-Retest Reliability
  • Interrater Reliability
  • Internal Consistency
  • Confidence Intervals
  • Standard Error Measurement
  • Face Validity
  • Construct Validity
  • Criterion-Related Validity
  • Content Validity
  • External Validity

Catholic Theology

Catholic Theology

Catholic Doctrine: God and/as Loving Conversation. We will explore the heart of Christian belief: the God who is “loving understanding” and calls us, in our interpersonal relations, to an imitation (mimesis) of and participation (koinonia) in God’s loving understanding. The experience ofGod’s grace is the experience of being lovingly understood, and we are called to lovingly understand ourselves and others. The Christian God
IS the eternal conversation of unlimited understanding speaking (Father) and lovingly listening (Holy Spirit) to God’s own word/logos (Jesus Christ), and God has lovingly spoken God’s mind in and through creation and human history in the mysterious “law of the cross,” in which good is intelligently and lovingly brought out of evil.
Thus, we will begin with Bishop Robert Barron’s rules for friendly conversation about faith and reason in Arguing Religion: A Bishop Speaks at Facebook and Google. This will guide our own class conversations and help us appropriate the methodological question of what (and why) we’re doing when we’re doing theology. It will also be helpful in understanding current social-political discourse, especially the struggle of
Americans to listen and speak in what Marshall Rosenberg calls “nonviolent communication” with others and, to quote colloquial parenting theory, “use our words.” Using our words does not mean parroting the right “word sounds” to gain approval from the group and scapegoat another, but using our words to express and seek correct understanding of and passion for truth and goodness.
After exploring what it means to reach (theological) understanding, we will try do so with respect to radical Catholic doctrines—radicalis, “of or relating to a root”—by reading Michael Himes’s The Mystery of Faith: An Introduction to Catholicism. On Himes’s understanding of the Catholic imagination, authentic human life is a process of “doing the truth in love.” We are to honestly say the truth we’ve understood and do what we
say. Our speaking should proceed from our understanding of the truth as the Son proceeds from the Father, and our acts of loving should proceed from our understanding of the truly good as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. The assessments in this course (see below) are an opportunity to join in this theological conversation of understanding and honestly speaking (e.g., writing) the truth about goodness, and do so persuasively-beautifully with love. People don’t tend to be united in conversation unless parties speak persuasivelybeautifully, and they can’t help but be united if they do.
At the end of each unit, you will write a 3–4 paged, double-spaced essay that will give you the opportunity to demonstrate learning outcomes 2–5: (2. clearly explain major themes in Catholic theology. 3. relate themes to one another in an orderly way. 4. creatively apply themes to some of [your] own life experiences. 5. formulate and justify [your] own theological positions persuasively.)
Each essay will include three sections.
Section 1: Reading Summation
• Clearly, thoroughly, and accurately explain a fundamental idea of your choice from the unit readings.
• Argue (give reasons/evidence) persuasively that the idea is important to Catholic theology.
• Coherently relate the fundamental idea to a wide range of other ideas in the unit readings.
Section 2: Lecture Summation

• Clearly, thoroughly, and accurately explain a fundamental idea of your choice from the unit lectures.
• Argue (give reasons/evidence) persuasively that the idea is important to Catholic theology.
• Coherently relate the fundamental idea to a wide range of other ideas in the unit lectures.
Section 3: Your own creative theological idea
• Clearly and thoroughly explain a fundamental theological idea/hypothesis of your own creation that complements unit readings and lectures.
• Argue (give reasons/evidence) persuasively that (1) the idea/hypothesis is important to Catholic theology and (2) it is true.
• Coherently relate your theological idea/hypothesis to a wide range of other ideas in the unit lectures and readings.
Readings so far: Arguing religion and Michael Himes’s The Mystery of Faith