Assessment of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HbA1c testing: implications for diabetes management and diagnosis.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic, and the focus on mitigating its effects, has disrupted diabetes healthcare services worldwide. We aimed to quantify the effect of the pandemic on diabetes diagnosis/management, using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as surrogate, across six UK centres. METHODS: Using routinely collected laboratory data, we estimated the number of missed HbA1c tests for 'diagnostic'/'screening'/'management' purposes during the COVID-19 impact period (CIP; 23 March 2020 to 30 September 2020). We examined potential impact in terms of: (1) diabetes control in people with diabetes and (2) detection of new diabetes and prediabetes cases. RESULTS: In April 2020, HbA1c test numbers fell by ~80%. Overall, across six centres, 369 871 tests were missed during the 6.28 months of the CIP, equivalent to >6.6 million tests nationwide. We identified 79 131 missed 'monitoring' tests in people with diabetes. In those 28 564 people with suboptimal control, this delayed monitoring was associated with a 2-3 mmol/mol HbA1c increase. Overall, 149 455 'screening' and 141 285 'diagnostic' tests were also missed. Across the UK, our findings equate to 1.41 million missed/delayed diabetes monitoring tests (including 0.51 million in people with suboptimal control), 2.67 million screening tests in high-risk groups (0.48 million within the prediabetes range) and 2.52 million tests for diagnosis (0.21 million in the pre-diabetes range; ~70 000 in the diabetes range). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in people with, or being investigated for, diabetes. For people with diabetes, missed tests will result in further deterioration in diabetes control, especially in those whose HbA1c levels are already high.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing: Prioritization of High-Risk Cases and Impact of Social Deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people with diabetes and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. During the first 6 months of the UK lockdown, > 6.6 M glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests were missed. We now report variability in the recovery of HbA1c testing, and its association with diabetes control and demographic characteristics. METHODS: In a service evaluation, we examined HbA1c testing across ten UK sites (representing 9.9% of England's population) from January 2019 to December 2021. We compared monthly requests from April 2020 to those in the equivalent 2019 months. We examined effects of (i) HbA1c level, (ii) between-practice variability, and (iii) practice demographics. RESULTS: In April 2020, monthly requests dropped to 7.9-18.1% of 2019 volumes. By July 2020, testing had recovered to 61.7-86.9% of 2019 levels. During April-June 2020, we observed a 5.1-fold variation in the reduction of HbA1c testing between general practices (12.4-63.8% of 2019 levels). There was evidence of limited prioritization of testing for patients with HbA1c > 86 mmol/mol during April-June 2020 (4.6% of total tests vs. 2.6% during 2019). Testing in areas with the highest social disadvantage was lower during the first lockdown (April-June 2020; trend test p < 0.001) and two subsequent periods (July-September and October-December 2020; both p < 0.001). By February 2021, testing in the highest deprivation group had a cumulative fall in testing of 34.9% of 2019 levels versus 24.6% in those in the lowest group. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that the pandemic response had a major impact on diabetes monitoring and screening. Despite limited test prioritization in the > 86 mmol/mol group, this failed to acknowledge that those in the 59-86 mmol/mol group require consistent monitoring to achieve the best outcomes. Our findings provide additional evidence that those from poorer backgrounds were disproportionately disadvantaged. Healthcare services should redress this health inequality.

Variability in Test Interval Is Linked to Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Trajectory over Time.

Aims: We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c). Materials & Methods. HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and ΔHbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c. Results: In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0-9.0% (54-75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4-0.6% (4-6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring.

Disruption Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing and Its Implications for Diabetes (DM) Management/Diagnosis

We explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on DM management/diagnosis. We extracted routine HbA1c data from laboratory systems at 5 UK hospitals from October2017-September2020 (representing 3.3million people;~4.8% of the UK population). From these data(3million tests), we calculated monthly missed monitoring/diagnostic tests from 23 March-30September 2020. We found that HbA1c tests dropped by 82-88% in April and had not reached expected volumes by September(Figure 1). During the 6-month period, in people with DM/at risk of DM, 206,422 monitoring tests were missed. Of these, 23,466 (11.4%) had previous HbA1c values ≥59mmol/mol. The testing delay in this group would, on average, result in a mean increase in HbA1c of 5.7 mmol/mol above that expected if monitoring was according to NICE guidance. There were also an estimated 81,245 missed diagnostic tests. Of these, ~6,105(7.5%) would be expected to be in the pre-DM range(42-47 mmol/mol) and ~3,633(4.5%) within DM range (≥48 mmol/mol), with ~1,333 of these having HbA1c values of ≥76 mmol/mol. Extrapolating to the UK population, this equates to missed monitoring tests in 489,000 people with sub-optimally-controlled DM, ~127,000 missed pre-DM and 76,000 missed DM diagnoses. Our findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate COVID-19 impact in people with, or being investigated for DM.

Modelling the impact of the mandatory use of face coverings on public transport and in retail outlets in the UK on COVID-19-related infections, hospital admissions and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/)(COVID-19) virus resulted in governments around the world instigating a range of measures, including mandating the wearing of face coverings on public transport/in retail outlets. METHODS: We developed a sequential assessment of the risk reduction provided by face coverings using a step-by-step approach. The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) Population Survey data were utilised to determine the baseline total number of community-derived infections. These were linked to reported hospital admissions/hospital deaths to create case admission risk ratio and admission-related fatality rate. We evaluated published evidence to establish an infection risk reduction for face coverings. We calculated an Infection Risk Score (IRS) for a number of common activities and related it to the effectiveness of reducing infection and its consequences, with a face covering, and evaluated their effect when applied to different infection rates over 3 months from July 24, 2020, when face coverings were made compulsory in England on public transport/retail outlets. RESULTS: We show that only 7.3% of all community-based infection risk is associated with public transport/retail outlets. In the week of July 24, The reported weekly community infection rate was 29 400 new cases at the start (July 24). The rate of growth in hospital admissions and deaths for England was around -15%/week, suggesting the infection rate, R, in the most vulnerable populations was just above 0.8. In this situation, average infections over the evaluated 13 week follow-up period, would be 9517/week with face covering of 40% effectiveness, thus, reducing average infections by 844/week, hospital admissions by 8/week and deaths by 0.6/week; a fall of 9% over the period total. If, however, the R-value rises to 1.0, then, average community infections would stay at 29 400/week and mandatory face coverings could reduce average weekly infections by 3930, hospital admissions by 36 and deaths by 2.9/week; a 13% reduction. If the R-value rose and stayed at 1.2, then, expected average community-derived hospital admissions would be 975/week and 40% effective face coverings would reduce this by 167/week and reduce possible expected hospital deaths from 80/week to 66/week. These reductions should be seen in the context that there was an average of 102 000/week all-cause hospital emergency admissions in England in June and 8900 total reported deaths in the week ending August 7, 2020. CONCLUSION: We have illustrated that the policy on mandatory use of face coverings in retail outlets/on public transport may have been very well followed, but may be of limited value in reducing hospital admissions and deaths, at least at the time that it was introduced, unless infections begin to rise faster than currently seen. The impact appears small compared with all other sources of risk, thereby raising questions regarding the effectiveness of the policy.