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.

Reducing fatigue-related symptoms in Long COVID-19: a preliminary report of a lymphatic drainage intervention.

In the early days of the first global wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential for a postviral syndrome to manifest following COVID-19 infection was first recognized. Here, we present an analysis of a case series of the first 20 patients' data collected in clinical practice to evaluate the potential of a possible alternative treatment for Long COVID. Methods: Face-to-face treatment sessions with Perrin technique practitioners occurred weekly involving effleurage/other manual articulatory techniques. The individuals being treated also undertook daily self-massage along with gentle mobility exercises. Patients recorded symptom severity using the self-report 54-item profile of fatigue-related states (PFRS) before and after treatment. Results: The mean age of male patients was 41.8 years (range, 29-53 years), and for female patients, 39.3 years (range, 28-50 years). None of the participants had a prior diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, and all were new attendees to the clinics at the time of initial assessment. The average number of treatment sessions was 9.7 in men and 9.4 in women. The reduction in PFRS scores was 45% in men and 52% in women. The highest subscale scores on average were for fatigue, with the lowest for somatic symptoms. All subscale scores showed, on average, a similar reduction of approximately 50% postintervention, with the reduction in score relating to a decrease in the severity of symptoms. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a specific manual lymphatic drainage intervention may help to reduce fatigue symptoms related to Long COVID. Perhaps preventing acute symptoms through early intervention.

Reducing fatigue-related symptoms in Long COVID-19: finding an intervention that works

Aims In the early days of the first global wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential for a post-viral syndrome to manifest following COVID-19 infection was highlighted. It was pointed out that an early intervention applying management techniques used in patients with CFS/ME appeared to help reduce the fatigue related symptoms of Long COVID. Here we present an analysis of a consecutive case series of the first twenty patients’ data collected. Our aim was to evaluate the potential of this mode of treatment for Long COVID. Method Face to face treatment sessions with the practitioners occurred once a week, involving effleurage and other manual articulatory techniques. The individuals being treated also undertook a daily self-massage along with gentle mobility exercises and alternating warm and cool gel packs on the upper spine, to encourage a reduction of spinal inflammation and further aid lymph drainage of the brain and spine. Symptom severity was recorded using the self-reported 54-item Profile of Fatigue Related States (PFRS). Result The mean age of the men was 41.8 years with a range of 29.1-53.1 years with the corresponding mean age for women being 39.3 years with a range of 28.3-50.4 years. The average time interval between onset of Coronavirus symptoms and start of treatment for Long COVID was just over 20 weeks. The average number of treatment sessions was similar at 9.7 in men and 9.4 in women. The change in Profile of Fatigue Related States (PFRS) score was similar in men with a significant decrease (-45%) as in women (-52%) (F 4.8, p < 0.001). None of the individuals had any prior diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. All were new attendees to the clinic at the time of initial assessment. Conclusion Our findings indicate that this intervention based on massage and mobility exercises significantly reduced fatigue related to Long COVID. It may be that early intervention and supportive treatments at the end of the acute phase of COVID-19 can help overcome acute phase symptoms and prevent them becoming chronic/enduring.

Analysis of continuous glucose tracking data in people with type 1 diabetes after COVID-19 vaccination reveals unexpected link between immune and metabolic response, augmented by adjunctive oral medication.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 vaccination programme is under way worldwide. Anecdotal evidence is increasing that some people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) experience temporary instability of blood glucose (BG) levels post-vaccination which normally settles within 2-3 days. We report an analysis of BG profiles of 20 individuals before/after vaccination. METHODS: We examined the BG profile of 20 consecutive adults (18 years of age or more) with T1DM using the FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitor in the period immediately before and after COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome measure was percentage (%) BG readings in the designated target range 3.9-10 mmmol/L as reported on the LibreView portal for 7 days prior to the vaccination (week -1) and the 7 days after the vaccination (week +1). RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the %BG on target following the COVID-vaccination for the 7 days following vaccination (mean 45.2% ± SE 4.2%) vs pre-COVID-19 vaccination (mean 52.6% ± SE 4.5%). This was mirrored by an increase in the proportion of readings in other BG categories 10.1%-13.9%/≥14%. There was no significant change in BG variability in the 7days post-COVID-19 vaccination. This change in BG proportion on target in the week following vaccination was most pronounced for people taking Metformin/Dapagliflozin+basal-bolus insulin (-23%) vs no oral hypoglycaemic agents (-4%), and median age <53 vs ≥53 years (greater reduction in %BG in target for older individuals (-18% vs -9%)). CONCLUSION: In T1DM, we have shown that COVID-19 vaccination can cause temporary perturbation of BG, with this effect more pronounced in patients talking oral hypoglycaemic medication plus insulin, and in older individuals. This may also have consequences for patients with T2DM who are currently not supported by flash glucose monitoring.

COVID-19: Generate and apply local modelled transmission and morbidity effects to provide an estimate of the variation in overall relative healthcare resource impact at general practice granularity.

INTRODUCTION: Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the name given to the 2019 novel coronavirus. COVID-19 is the name given to the disease associated with the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is a new strain of coronavirus not been previously identified in humans. METHODS: Two key factors, case incidence and case morbidity, were analysed for England. When taken together they give an estimate of relative demand on healthcare utilisation. To analyse case incidence, the latest values for indicators that could be associated with infection transmission rates were collected from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) sources. These included population density, %age >16, at fulltime work/education, %age over 60, %BME ethnicity, social deprivation as IMD2019, location as latitude/longitude, and patient engagement as %self-confident in their own long-term condition management. Average case morbidity was calculated. To provide a comparative measure of overall healthcare resource impact, individual GP practice impact scores were compared against the median practice. RESULTS: The case incidence regression is a dynamic situation but it currently shows that Urban, %Working, and age >60 were the strongest determinants of case incidence. The local population comorbidity remains unchanged. The range of relative healthcare impact was wide with 80% of practices falling at 20%-250% of the national median. Once practice population numbers were included we found that the top 33% of GP practices supporting 45% of the patient population would require 68% of COVID-19 healthcare resources. The model provides useful information about the relative impact of Covid-19 on healthcare workload at GP practice granularity in all parts of England. CONCLUSION: Covid-19 is impacting on the utilisation of health/social care resources across the world. This model provides a way of predicting relative local levels of disease burden based on defined criteria, thereby providing a method for targeting limited care resources to optimise national/regional/local responses to the COVID-19 outbreak.

A phased approach to unlocking during the COVID-19 pandemic-Lessons from trend analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to radical political control of social behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to explore data trends from the pandemic regarding infection rates/policy impact, and draw learning points for informing the unlocking process. METHODS: The daily published cases in England in each of 149 Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA) areas were converted to Average Daily Infection Rate (ADIR), an R-value - the number of further people infected by one infected person during their infectious phase with Rate of Change of Infection Rate (RCIR) also calculated. Stepwise regression was carried out to see what local factors could be linked to differences in local infection rates FINDINGS: By the 19th April 2020 the infection R has fallen from 2.8 on 23rd March before the lockdown and has stabilised at about 0.8, sufficient for suppression. However there remain significant variations between England regions. Regression analysis across UTLAs found that the only factor relating to reduction in ADIR was the historic number of confirmed number infection/000 population, There is however wide variation between Upper Tier Local Authorities (UTLA) areas. Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be 150 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 26.8% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunityExtrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be 150 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 26.8% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity. INTERPRETATION: Analysis of current case data using infectious ratio has provided novel insight into the current national state and can be used to make better-informed decisions about future management of restricted social behaviour and movement.

LIVING WITH COVID-19: BALANCING COSTS AGAINST BENEFITS IN THE FACE OF THE VIRUS

This paper analyses the costs and benefits of lockdown policies in the face of COVID-19. What matters for people is the quality and length of lives and one should measure costs and benefits in terms of those things. That raises difficulties in measurement, particularly in valuing potential lives saved. We draw upon guidelines used in the UK for public health decisions, as well as other measures, which allow a comparison between health effects and other economic effects. We look at evidence on the effectiveness of past severe restrictions applied in European countries, focusing on the evidence from the UK. The paper considers policy options for the degree to which restrictions are eased. There is a need to normalise how we view COVID because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource decisions for decades. The lockdown is a public health policy and we have valued its impact using the tools that guide health care decisions in the UK public health system. The evidence suggests that the costs of continuing severe restrictions in the UK are large relative to likely benefits so that a substantial easing in general restrictions in favour of more targeted measures is warranted.