Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Tight glucose control has been shown to improve the outcome of patients with severe acute illnesses who are hospitalized in intensive care units and on intravenous insulin-based regimens.

Objectives: To clarify the attitudes of internists towards tight control of glucose levels in acutely ill patients hospitalized in general medical wards.

Methods: A questionnaire on intensive glucose control in acutely ill patients hospitalized in medical wards was mailed to each of the 100 heads of internal medicine departments in Israel.

Results: Fifty physicians responded. Of these, 80% considered tight glucose control to be a major treatment target, but only two-thirds had defined it as a goal in their ward. Furthermore, only about half had a defined protocol for such an intervention. Most physicians considered patients with acute coronary syndrome, stroke and infectious diseases as candidates for a tight glucose control protocol. The most frequently used modalities were multiple blood glucose measurements and repeated injections of short-acting subcutaneous insulin. The main reasons given for not having a defined protocol were lack of guidelines, no evidence of a clear benefit during hospitalization on a medical ward, and a shortage of adequately trained staff.

Conclusions: Inconsistencies in physicians’ attitudes and in treatment protocols regarding tight control of glucose levels in acutely ill patients hospitalized on a medical ward need to be addressed. Evaluation of the feasibility, effectiveness and side effects of a defined protocol is needed before any regimen can be approved by the heads of the internal medicine departments.
 

Objectives: To study the necessity of bone marrow examination for the diagnosis and clinical course of MGUS[1].

Methods: We retrospectively screened the medical records of all patients in whom monoclonal protein was found in the serum during 2001–2002 in the medical laboratories of Sapir Medical Center. Asymptomatic patients who had serum monoclonal immunoglobulin G < 3.0 g/dl or IgA[2] < 2.0 g/dl or IgM < 1.0 g/dl without anemia, renal failure, hypercalcemia or any bone lesions on skeletal survey were eligible. Full records of patients who were evaluated in the hematology clinic were available (group 1). The remaining patients were followed by their family physicians; thus we had access only to their electronic files including laboratory results and new diagnoses (group 2). Demographic and clinical parameters as well as clinical course were evaluated.

Results: Both groups (57 and 255 patients, respectively) had similar demographic, laboratory and clinical characteristics. Bone marrow examination was performed in 30 of 57 patients (group 1): 16 were normal, 8 had an excess of normal plasma cells, and 6 had excess of pathologic plasma cells. However, only in two of the latter six could a diagnosis of multiple myeloma be established. All group 1 patients were followed for 22 ± 11 months and only two developed overt multiple myeloma. During the same period, 6 of 255 patients (group 2) were diagnosed as multiple myeloma and 3 as MGUS in other hospitals. The rest had a stable course with no change in their laboratory values.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that bone marrow examination should not be performed routinely in patients who fulfill strict clinical and laboratory criteria of MGUS.