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
Only a few earlier clinical radiologic reports exist describing post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis. We report a case of 74-year-old woman referred with dizziness and hypoxemic respiratory failure with chest high resolution computer tomography (HRCT) showing ground glass opacities and emphysema. The patient was tested for Sars-CoV-2 and resulted positive, she was treated with medical therapy and supported with mechanical ventilation. Despite initial clinical and radiological improvements, subsequently the respiratory failure worsened as ground glass opacities evolved, with the appearance of combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema and the patient eventually died. Development of pulmonary fibrosis after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the overlap with preexistent emphysema could be a fatal complication.
ABSTRACT
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic required a thorough re-organization of every sector of the healthcare system. Sleep laboratories need to renew protocols in order to guarantee the safety of patients and healthcare staff while providing exams. Polysomnography (PSG) examinations are essential for the diagnosis and treatment management of several sleep disorders, which may constitute a public or personal safety issue such as obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Here we provide some practical advice on how to perform sleep studies after the COVID-19 outbreak based on our experience, the review of the existing literature and current national and international recommendations by Health Authorities. We believe that with appropriate precautions it is possible to guarantee a safe restart of PSG and other sleep studies.