ABSTRACT
AIMS: Telemedicine is advocated as a fundamental tool in modern clinical management. However, data on the effects of telemedicine vs face-to-face consultation on clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are still uncertain. This paper describes the use of telemedicine during the 2020 COVID-19 emergency and compares volume activity and quality indicators of diabetes care between face-to-face vs telemedicine counseling in the large cohort of T2DM patients from the AMD Annals Initiative. METHODS: Demographic and clinical characteristics, including laboratory parameters, rate of the screening of long-term complications, current therapies and the Q-score, a validated score that measures the overall quality of care, were compared between 364,898 patients attending face-to-face consultation and 46,424 on telemedicine, during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Patients on telemedicine showed lower HbA1c levels (7.1 ± 1.2 % vs 7.3 ± 1.3 %, p < 0.0001), and they were less frequently treated with metformin, GLP1-RAs and SGLT2i and more frequently with DPP4i. The telemedicine group showed reduced monitoring of the various parameters considered as process indicators, especially, eye and foot examination. The proportion of patients with a good quality of care (Q score > 25) was higher among those receiving face-to-face consultation. Moreover, in the telemedicine group, all major clinical outcomes remained stable when further compared to those collected in the year 2019, when the same patients underwent a regular face-to-face consultation, suggesting that the care provided through telemedicine did not negatively affect the most important parameters. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine provided an acceptable quality of diabetes care, comparable to that of patients attending face-to-face consultation, although a less frequent screening of complications seems to have occurred in subjects consulted by telemedicine.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: To assess if patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) are: a) at excess risk of undergoing testing, contracting, and dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population; b) whether cardiovascular diseases (CAVDs) contribute to COVID-19-related death; and c) what is the effect of DM2 duration and control on COVID-19-related death. METHODS: This population-based study involved all 449,440 adult residents of the Reggio Emilia province, Italy. DM2 patients were divided in groups by COVID testing, presence of CAVDs and COVID death. Several mediation analyses were performed. RESULTS: Patients with DM2 had an increased likelihood of being tested (Odds ratio, OR 1.27 95 %CI 1.23-1.30), testing positive (OR 1.21 95 %CI 1.16-1.26) and dying from COVID-19 (OR 1.75 95 %CI 1.54-2.00). COVID-19-related death was almost three times higher among obese vs non-obese patients with DM2 (OR 4.3 vs 1.6, respectively). For COVID-19 death, CAVDs mediated a) just 5.1 % of the total effect of DM2, b) 40 % of the effect of DM2 duration, and c) did not mediate the effect of glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: For COVID-19-related deaths in DM2 patients, the effect is mostly direct, obesity amplifies it, DM2 control and duration are important predictors, while CAVDs only slightly mediates it.