ABSTRACT
Introduction In a person with type 1 diabetes, any change concerning daily routine may lead to changes in glycaemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of work and lockdown on glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes. Material and methods A retrospective cohort was stratified into three activity groups (g1-students/telework/laid-off;g2-unemployed/retired;g3-work without lockdown). Continuous and categorical variations (reductions ≥ 0.4%) in glycated haemoglobin were obtained in 2020 (t3:December/2019–March/2020;t4:April/2020–July/2020) and in homologous periods of 2019. Intragroup comparisons between years and intergroups in the same year were made. Regression models were developed to predict the variation of glycated haemoglobin in 2020. Results 241 participants were included, with a significant reduction between t4 and t3 (vs. t2 and t1) in g1 (p < 0.001) and g2 (p = 0.025) and in 2020 in g1 (vs. g2, p < 0.001;vs. g3, p < 0.001). Only g1 presented superiority in the reduction ≥0.4% in glycated haemoglobin in 2020 (vs. 2019, p < 0.001;vs. g2, p < 0.001;vs. g3, p < 0.001). The insulin regimens were comparable and the development of hypoglycaemia was found to be superimposed between t3 and t4, except for g1, which was higher at t3 (p = 0.029). G1 correlated with continuous reductions (vs. g2, p = 0.001;vs. g3, p < 0.001) and ≥0.4% in glycated haemoglobin in 2020 (vs. g2, OR 3.6, p < 0.001;vs. g3, OR 12.7, p < 0.001), regardless of the age and duration of type 1 diabetes. Conclusions A more stable and better glycaemic control was observed in participants who transitioned from face-to-face work to total lockdown.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: In a person with type 1 diabetes, any change concerning daily routine may lead to changes in glycaemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of work and lockdown on glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort was stratified into three activity groups (g1-students/telework/laid-off; g2-unemployed/retired; g3-work without lockdown). Continuous and categorical variations (reductions ≥ 0.4%) in glycated haemoglobin were obtained in 2020 (t3:December/2019-March/2020; t4:April/2020-July/2020) and in homologous periods of 2019. Intragroup comparisons between years and intergroups in the same year were made. Regression models were developed to predict the variation of glycated haemoglobin in 2020. Results: 241 participants were included, with a significant reduction between t4 and t3 (vs. t2 and t1) in g1 (p < 0.001) and g2 (p = 0.025) and in 2020 in g1 (vs. g2, p < 0.001; vs. g3, p < 0.001). Only g1 presented superiority in the reduction ≥0.4% in glycated haemoglobin in 2020 (vs. 2019, p < 0.001; vs. g2, p < 0.001; vs. g3, p < 0.001). The insulin regimens were comparable and the development of hypoglycaemia was found to be superimposed between t3 and t4, except for g1, which was higher at t3 (p = 0.029). G1 correlated with continuous reductions (vs. g2, p = 0.001; vs. g3, p < 0.001) and ≥0.4% in glycated haemoglobin in 2020 (vs. g2, OR 3.6, p < 0.001; vs. g3, OR 12.7, p < 0.001), regardless of the age and duration of type 1 diabetes. Conclusions: A more stable and better glycaemic control was observed in participants who transitioned from face-to-face work to total lockdown.
Introducción: En una persona con diabetes tipo 1, cualquier cambio en la rutina diaria puede provocar cambios en el control glucémico. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto del trabajo y el confinamiento en el control glucémico en adultos con diabetes tipo 1. Material y métodos: Se estratificó una cohorte retrospectiva en tres grupos de actividad (g1-estudiantes/teletrabajo/despido; g2-desempleados/jubilados; g3-trabajo sin encierro). Se obtuvieron variaciones continuas y categóricas (reducciones ≥ 0,4%) en la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (t3: diciembre/2019-marzo/2020; t4: abril/2020-julio/2020) y en períodos homólogos de 2019. Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión para predecir la variación de la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020. Resultados: Se incluyeron 241 participantes, con una reducción significativa entre t4 y t3 (vs. t2 y t1) en g1 (p < 0,001) y g2 (p = 0,025) y en 2020 en g1 (vs. g2, p < 0,001; vs. g3, p < 0,001). Solo g1 demostró superioridad en la reducción ≥ 0,4% de la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (vs. 2019, p < 0,001; vs. g2, p < 0,001; vs. g3, p < 0,001). Los regímenes de terapia con insulina fueron comparables y el desarrollo de hipoglucemia fue superponible entre t3 y t4, excepto para g1, que fue mayor en t3 (p = 0,029). G1 se correlacionó con reducciones continuas (vs. g2, p = 0,001; vs. g3, p < 0,001) y ≥ 0,4% en la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (vs. g2, odds ratio [OR] 3,6, p < 0,001; vs. g3, OR 12,7, p < 0,001), independientemente de la edad y la duración de la diabetes tipo 1. Conclusiones: Se observó un control glucémico más optimizado a los participantes que pasaron del trabajo presencial al confinamiento total.
ABSTRACT
The pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes COVID-19, has deeply affected health systems and has had a significant impact on families, communities and nations. A comprehensive response strategy requires, in addition to epidemiological, scientific and technical considerations, for human suffering associated with disease, vulnerability and death not to be forgotten. Palliative care for people with suspicion or diagnosis of COVID-19 with serious evolution, and their families should also be a key part of organized actions that help alleviate suffering and improve quality of life by controlling symptoms, addressing psychological, emotional, social and spiritual needs, support for advanced care planning and its goals, end-of-life care, as well as support in complex decision-making and ethical problems, among others. Recommendations are provided for offering palliative care in COVID-19 pandemic context.
La pandemia de infección por SARS-CoV-2, la cual es causada por COVID-19, ha afectado profundamente a los sistemas de salud y ha ocasionado un enorme impacto en las familias, las comunidades y las naciones. La estrategia de respuesta integral requiere que además de las consideraciones epidemiológicas, científicas y técnicas, no se olvide el sufrimiento humano asociado a la enfermedad, la vulnerabilidad y la muerte. La atención paliativa a personas con sospecha o diagnóstico de COVID-19 con evolución grave y sus familias debe ser también parte clave de la acción organizada que ayude al alivio del sufrimiento y mejore la calidad de vida mediante el control de los síntomas, el abordaje de las necesidades psicológicas, sociales y espirituales, el apoyo para la planificación de la atención avanzada y la articulación de los objetivos de la misma, el cuidado de la persona en la fase final de la vida, así como el soporte ante la toma de decisiones complejas y problemas éticos, entre otros. Se ofrecen recomendaciones para brindar los cuidados paliativos en el contexto de la pandemia de COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Palliative Care , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Introducción: En una persona con diabetes tipo 1, cualquier cambio en la rutina diaria puede provocar cambios en el control glucémico. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto del trabajo y el confinamiento en el control glucémico en adultos con diabetes tipo 1. Material y métodos: Se estratificó una cohorte retrospectiva en tres grupos de actividad (g1-estudiantes/teletrabajo/despido;g2-desempleados/jubilados;g3-trabajo sin encierro). Se obtuvieron variaciones continuas y categóricas (reducciones ≥0,4%) en la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (t3: diciembre/2019-marzo/2020;t4:abril/2020-julio/2020) y en períodos homólogos de 2019. Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión para predecir la variación de la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020. Resultados: Se incluyeron 241 participantes, con una reducción significativa entre t4 y t3 (vs. t2 y t1) en g1 (p<0,001) y g2 (p=0,025) y en 2020 en g1 (vs. g2, p<0,001;vs. g3, p<0,001). Solo g1 demostró superioridad en la reducción ≥0,4% de la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (vs. 2019, p <0,001;vs. g2, p<0,001;vs. g3, p<0,001). Los regímenes de terapia con insulina fueron comparables y se encontró que el desarrollo de hipoglucemia estaba superpuesto entre t3 y t4, excepto para g1, que fue mayor en t3 (p=0,029). G1 se correlacionó con reducciones continuas (vs. g2, p=0,001;vs. g3, p<0,001) y ≥0,4% en la hemoglobina glucosilada en 2020 (vs. g2, OR 3,6, p<0,001;vs. g3, OR 12,7, p<0,001), independientemente de la edad y la duración de la diabetes tipo 1. Conclusiones: Se apuntó un control glucémico más optimizado a los participantes que pasaron del trabajo presencial al confinamiento total.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. METHODS: Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. RESULTS: The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient's spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.