Insulin-Induced Edema in a Patient with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Imaging of Sarcopenia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Sarcopenia is an age-related condition characterized by the loss of skeletal muscle mass, muscular strength, and muscle function. In older adults, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) constitutes a significant health burden. Skeletal muscle damage and deterioration have emerged as novel chronic complications in patients with diabetes, often linked to their increased longevity. Diabetic sarcopenia has been associated with increased rates of hospitalization, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Nevertheless, effectively managing metabolic disorders in patients with T2DM through appropriate therapeutic interventions could potentially mitigate the risk of sarcopenia. Utilizing imaging technologies holds substantial clinical significance in the early detection of skeletal muscle mass alterations associated with sarcopenia. Such detection is pivotal for arresting disease progression and preserving patients' quality of life. These imaging modalities offer reproducible and consistent patterns over time, as they all provide varying degrees of quantitative data. This review primarily delves into the application of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound for both qualitative and quantitative assessments of muscle mass in patients with T2DM. It also juxtaposes the merits and limitations of these four techniques. By understanding the nuances of each method, clinicians can discern how best to apply them in diverse clinical scenarios.

Insulin Edema Associated With Glargine

Insulin edema is a poorly understood complication of insulin therapy. It has been reported in patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus and typically occurs in patients with newly diagnosed or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus either after initiation or intensification of insulin therapy. A 20-year-old man presented with anorexia, polydipsia, and weight loss. Serum glucose on admission was 824 mg/dL (45.8 mmol/L) and hemoglobin A1c was >14.0. Additional workup was notable for positive anti-IA2 antibodies and low C-peptide of 0.5 ng/mL (1.1-4.4 ng/mL). He was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus and was started on insulin therapy with glargine and lispro. Within 4 days after insulin initiation, he developed bilateral leg swelling and reported a 25-pound (11.3-kg) weight gain over the next 10 days. After excluding other systemic causes of edema such as heart failure, renal failure, and liver failure, a diagnosis of insulin edema was made. Insulin glargine was switched to insulin degludec. Complete resolution of edema occurred within 3 days of switching the insulins. Insulin edema is a diagnosis of exclusion. Insulin's role in renal sodium handling, vasodilation, and increased vascular permeability have been postulated as possible mechanisms. Clinicians should be aware of this rare complication.

Validation of a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis device for the assessment of body composition in older adults with type 2 diabetes

Background

Aging and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are associated with an increased risk of sarcopenia. Diagnosis of sarcopenia is commonly done using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in specialized settings. Another available method for assessing body composition is direct segmental multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (DSMF-BIA). Here, we examine the accuracy of a DSMF-BIA (InBody-770) for assessing body composition in older adults with T2DM when compared to DXA.

Methods

Eighty-four obese/overweight older adults (49 women, 71 ± 5 years) with T2DM who were recruited for the CEV-65 study and had both DSMF-BIA and DXA assessments at baseline were included. The analysis included Bland–Altman plots and intra class correlation coefficients. Sub-analyses were performed according to gender and following 10 weeks of interventions (diet, circuit training, and Empagliflozin).

Results

The leg lean mass results according to DSMF-BIA and DXA were 14.76 ± 3.62 kg and 15.19 ± 3.52 kg, respectively, with no difference between devices according to Bland–Altman analyses (p = 0.353). Assessment of appendicular skeletal mass index did not differ between DSMF-BIA and DXA (7.43 vs. 7.47 kg/m²; p = 0.84; ICC = 0.965, p < 0.0001; mean difference −0.068, p = 0.595). Gender and treatment interventions did not modify the accuracy of the DSMF-BIA when compared to DXA.

Conclusions

In older adults with T2DM the degree of agreement between DSMF-BIA and DXA, was high, supporting the use of DSMF-BIA to measure muscle mass.