Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract ; : 110158, 2022 Nov 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2120335

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.

2.
Diabetes ; 69:N.PAG-N.PAG, 2020.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1456231

ABSTRACT

Background: Symptom relief, prolonging survival and avoiding complications are key goals in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), but health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may be as or more important to patients. We used DISCOVER, a global observational study of people with T2D initiating a second-line glucose-lowering therapy, to examine factors associated with HRQoL over 3 years of follow-up. Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) v2 mental and physical component summary (MCS;PCS) scores (higher scores = better HRQoL) and the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey II (HFS-II;higher scores = greater fear). Factors associated with HRQoL over time were assessed using longitudinal multivariable regression models. Results: Of 14 691 DISCOVER patients from 37 countries, baseline and ≥ 1 follow-up MCS, PCS and HFS-II scores were available for 7880, 7854 and 5387 patients, respectively. Over time, SF-36 scores decreased (change per 6 months from baseline: MCS −0.04 [95% CI: −0.05 to −0.04];PCS −0.03 [95% CI: −0.03 to −0.02]), and HFS-II scores increased (change: 0.10 [95% CI: 0.09 to 0.12]). Many factors were associated with HRQoL (Table). Conclusions: HRQoL worsened during follow-up. Patient-, disease- and treatment-related factors were associated with HRQoL differences. Assessing factors associated with HRQoL over time may inform interventions to improve this important outcome. Disclosure: A. Nicolucci: Consultant;Self;AstraZeneca. H. Chen: None. A. Cooper: Employee;Self;AstraZeneca. M.B. Gomes: None. L. Ji: None. K. Khunti: Advisory Panel;Self;Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Board Member;Self;AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. Consultant;Self;Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Research Support;Self;AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Speaker's Bureau;Self;Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. M.N. Kosiborod: Consultant;Self;Amarin Corporation, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eisai Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US, Vifor Pharma Group. Research Support;Self;AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. P. Leigh: Employee;Self;AstraZeneca. Employee;Spouse/Partner;Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. L. Ramirez: None. M.V. Shestakova: None. I. Shimomura: Advisory Panel;Self;AstraZeneca K.K., Daiichi Sankyo, Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Consultant;Self;MSD K.K., Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd. Research Support;Self;Astellas Pharma Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Kowa Company, Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD K.K., Novartis Pharma K.K., Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Sanofi K.K., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Teijin Pharma Limited. Speaker's Bureau;Self;Amgen Astellas BioPharma K.K., Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca K.K., Covidien Japan Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., KOBAYASHI Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Company, Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi T nabe Pharma Corporation, MSD K.K., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd., Nippon Chemiphar Co., Ltd., Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Sanofi K.K., Sanwa Kagaku Kenkyusho, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Teijin Pharma Limited. A. Siddiqui: None. F. Tang: Research Support;Self;AstraZeneca. J. Vora: Other Relationship;Self;AstraZeneca. H. Watada: Advisory Panel;Self;Abbott, Ajinomoto, Astellas Pharma Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fuji Film, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Kowa Company, Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Terumo Medical Corporation. Research Support;Self;Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Company, Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Novartis Pharma K.K., Novo Nordisk Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Sanwa Kagaku Kenkyusho, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Teijin Pharma Limited, Yakult. Speaker's Bureau;Self;Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Company, Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Sanofi-Aventis, Sanwa Kagaku Kenkyusho, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. S.V. Arnold: None. Funding: AstraZeneca [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Diabetes is the property of American Diabetes Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

3.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev ; 38(1): e3476, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1245386

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Diabetes is emerging as a risk factor for coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 prognosis. However, contradictory findings have been reported regarding the impact of glycaemic control on COVID-19 outcome. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the impact of hospital pre-admission or at-admission values of HbA1c on COVID-19 mortality or worsening in patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus up to 30th December 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection were the following: (1)enrolling patients with any form of diabetes mellitus and hospitalized for COVID-19 and (2) reporting data regarding HbA1c values before infection or at hospital admission in relation to COVID-19 mortality or worsening. Descriptive statistics, HbA1c values, odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios were extracted from seven observational studies and generic inverse variance (random effects) of OR was used to estimate the effect of HbA1c on COVID-19 outcome. RESULTS: HbA1c was linearly associated with an increased COVID-19 mortality or worsening when considered as a continuous variable (OR 1.01 [1.01, 1.01]; p < 0.00001). Similarly, when analysing studies providing the number of events according to the degree of glycaemic control among various strata, a significantly increased risk was observed with poor glycaemic control (OR 1.15 [1.11, 1.19]; p < 0.00001), a result corroborated by sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the large heterogeneity in study design and patients' characteristics in the few available studies, data suggest that patients with diabetes and poor glycaemic control before infection might have an increased risk of COVID-19 related mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Glycated Hemoglobin A , COVID-19/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Humans , Hyperglycemia , Risk Assessment
4.
Acta Diabetol ; 58(7): 919-927, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1141430

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, more than half of World population lives in Urban Environments. Urban Diabetes has arisen as a novel nosological entity in Medicine. Urbanization leads to the accrual of a number of factors increasing the vulnerability to diabetes mellitus and related diseases. Herein we report clinical-epidemiological data of the Milano Metropolitan Area in the contest of the Cities Changing Diabetes Program. Since the epidemiological picture was taken in January 2020, on the edge of COVID-19 outbreak in the Milano Metropolitan Area, a perspective addressing potential interactions between diabetes and obesity prevalence and COVID-19 outbreak, morbidity and mortality will be presented. To counteract lock-down isolation and, in general, social distancing a pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility and efficacy of tele-monitoring via Flash Glucose control in a cohort of diabetic patients in ASST North Milano. METHODS: Data presented derive from 1. ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics of Italy), 2. Milano ATS web site (Health Agency of Metropolitan Milano Area), which entails five ASST (Health Agencies in the Territories). A pilot study was conducted in 65 screened diabetic patients (only 40 were enrolled in the study of those 36 were affected by type 2 diabetes and 4 were affected by type 1 diabetes) of ASST North Milano utilizing Flash Glucose Monitoring for 3 months (mean age 65 years, HbA1c 7,9%. Patients were subdivided in 3 groups using glycemic Variability Coefficient (VC): a. High risk, VC > 36, n. 8 patients; Intermediate risk 20 < VC < 36, n. 26 patients; Low risk VC < 20, n. 4 patients. The control group was constituted by 26 diabetic patients non utilizing Flash Glucose monitoring. RESULTS: In a total population of 3.227.264 (23% is over 65 y) there is an overall prevalence of 5.65% with a significant difference between Downtown ASST (5.31%) and peripheral ASST (ASST North Milano, 6.8%). Obesity and overweight account for a prevalence of 7.8% and 27.7%, respectively, in Milano Metropolitan Area. We found a linear relationship (R = 0.36) between prevalence of diabetes and aging index. Similarly, correlations between diabetes prevalence and both older people depending index and structural dependence index (R = 0.75 and R = 0.93, respectively), were found. A positive correlation (R = 0.46) with percent of unoccupied people and diabetes prevalence was also found. A reverse relationship between diabetes prevalence and University level instruction rate was finally identified (R = - 0.82). Our preliminary study demonstrated a reduction of Glycated Hemoglobin (p = 0.047) at 3 months follow-up during the lock-down period, indicating Flash Glucose Monitoring and remote control as a potential methodology for diabetes management during COVID-19 lock-down. HYPOTHESIS AND DISCUSSION: The increase in diabetes and obesity prevalence in Milano Metropolitan Area, which took place over 30 years, is related to several environmental factors. We hypothesize that some of those factors may have also determined the high incidence and virulence of COVID-19 in the Milano area. Health Agencies of Milano Metropolitan Area are presently taking care of diabetic patients facing the new challenge of maintaining sustainable diabetes care costs in light of an increase in urban population and of the new life-style. The COVID-19 pandemic will modify the management of diabetic and obese patients permanently, via the implementation of approaches that entail telemedicine technology. The pilot study conducted during the lock-down period indicates an improvement of glucose control utilizing a remote glucose control system in the Milano Metropolitan Area, suggesting a wider utilization of similar methodologies during the present "second wave" lock-down.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Quarantine , Telemedicine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/standards , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/statistics & numerical data , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Glycemic Control/methods , Glycemic Control/psychology , Glycemic Control/standards , Glycemic Control/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Obesity/epidemiology , Obesity/therapy , Overweight/epidemiology , Overweight/therapy , Pandemics , Physical Distancing , Pilot Projects , Prevalence , Quarantine/psychology , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Socioeconomic Factors , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population
5.
Transfus Med ; 31(3): 160-166, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955504

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated how the Severe Acute Respiratory disease from Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic impacted transfusion services, transfusion support required by Covid-19 patients and their clinical outcome. BACKGROUND: In Italy, the first confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection was registered on 21 February 2020. As of 20 April, about 250 000 cases were registered, 1143 of which were in the province of Pescara. METHODS: We compared transfusion services provided by the blood centre of Pescara between 1 March and 20 April 2019 and between 1 March and 20 April 2020. We assessed the number and type of blood components donated, those transfused in the various hospital departments and those transfused to Covid-19 patients. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, we documented a decrease of 32% in the number of donations. The number of transfusions increased by 139% in the infectious diseases department (IDD), dedicated to Covid-19 patients, and by 76% in the intensive care unit (ICU), whereas it markedly decreased in the other departments. Of 299 patients with Covid-19, 60 were transfused (20.1%). Transfused patients in the ICU were significantly younger than those in IDD and had a lower number of lymphocytes, lower post-transfusion increment of haemoglobin levels and higher D-dimer and C reactive protein values. Mortality rate was 60.7% among transfused patients in the ICU and 39.0% among those in the IDD (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The Covid-19 epidemic had a profound impact on transfusion activities. The important blood demand for Covid-19 patients was satisfied because of the reduction in activities in other hospital wards. Covid-19-positive transfused patients showed a very poor prognosis.


Subject(s)
Blood Banks/statistics & numerical data , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Component Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Blood Donors/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL