Longitudinal study of the flash glucose monitoring system in type 1 diabetics: An mHealth ally in times of COVID-19.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the FreeStyle Libre device implantation in adult type 1 diabetics in a Health Area of Castilla La Mancha (Spain) during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: FreeStyle Libre is a so-called mHealth device that supports health care. During COVID-1 confinement, diabetic patients could have improved their glycaemic monitoring thanks to these devices, although health care in these patients may have been limited due to confinement. METHODS: A 12-month longitudinal study in which a total of 206 type I diabetics participated, belonging to a single health area. Sociodemographic and analytical data and the Self Care Inventory Revised questionnaire (SCI-R) were collected. STROBE checklist was followed. RESULTS: The analysis showed differences related to the use of the sensor. After the study period, patients obtained better levels of basal glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin, creatinine, cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL. In addition, a significant increase in the total score of the SCI-R questionnaire was observed after the use of the monitor (MD -7.77; 95% CI -10.43, -8.29). The same occurred with different SCI-R items such as diet (MD -2.995; 95% CI -3.24, -2.57), glucose determination (MD -3.21; 95% CI -3.52, -2.91), medication administration (MD -2.58; 95% CI -2.53, -1.96) and hypoglycaemic episodes (MD -1.07; 95% CI -1.21, -0.93). In the analysis by groups, worse values of glycosylated haemoglobin and adherence to treatment (p < .05) were observed in overweight/obese subjects versus those with normal weight after one year of study. CONCLUSION: The use of flash monitoring is related to better adherence to most of the recommended habits in diabetes. Nevertheless, there seems to be no relationship with an improvement in physical exercise and preventive aspects of diabetes. A good nursing intervention to support physical exercise and the use of mHealth devices could improve the control of diabetic patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The use of this mHealth device has shown positive results and reduced complications. Despite less contact with healthcare facilities due to the pandemic, type 1 diabetic patients have improved their blood results and adherence after using the device for one year. Nursing staff should focus on promoting physical activity and routine disease care in type 1 diabetics.

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.

Baseline haemoglobin A1c and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization among patients with diabetes in the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network.

AIMS: To examine the association between baseline glucose control and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and in-hospital death among patients with diabetes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients in the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network with a diabetes diagnosis and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement in the year prior to an index date of March 15, 2020. Patients were divided into four exposure groups based on their most recent HbA1c measurement (in mmol/mol): 39-46 (5.7%-6.4%), 48-57 (6.5%-7.4%), 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%), and ≥86 (10%). Time to COVID-19 hospitalization was compared in the four groups in a propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for potential confounders. Patients were followed until June 15, 2020. In-hospital death was examined as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of 168,803 patients who met inclusion criteria; 50,016 patients had baseline HbA1c 39-46 (5.7%-6.4%); 54,729 had HbA1c 48-57 (6.5-7.4%); 47,640 had HbA1c 58-85 (7.5^%-9.9%) and 16,418 had HbA1c ≥86 (10%). Compared with patients with HbA1c 48-57 (6.5%-7.4%), the risk of hospitalization was incrementally greater for those with HbA1c 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.34) and HbA1c ≥86 (10%) (aHR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19-1.64). The risk of COVID-19 in-hospital death was increased only in patients with HbA1c 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06, 1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes patients with high baseline HbA1c had a greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, although association between HbA1c and in-hospital death was less consistent. Preventive efforts for COVID-19 should be focused on diabetes patients with poor glucose control.

The Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Glycaemic Control and Lipid Profile in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control and other metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes is still evolving. AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The PRISMA framework was the method used to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the search strategy was based on the population, intervention, control and outcome (PICO) model. The Health Sciences Research databases was accessed via EBSCO-host, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. Searches were conducted from inception of the databases until 17 September 2021. RESULTS: The results identified three distinct areas: glycaemic control, lipid parameters and body mass index. It was found that COVID-19 lockdown led to a significant (p < 0.01) increase in the levels of glycated haemoglobin (%) compared with pre-COVID group (gp) with a mean difference of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.38). Eleven studies contributed to the data for glycated haemoglobin analysis with a total of 16,895 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown gp, n = 8417; pre-COVID gp, n = 8478). The meta-analysis of fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) also showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in levels of post-COVID-19 lockdown gp compared with pre-COVID gp, with a mean difference of 7.19 (95% CI: 5.28, 9.10). Six studies contributed to fasting plasma glucose analysis involving a total of 2327 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown, n = 1159; pre-COVID gp, n = 1168). The body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) analysis also demonstrated that post-COVID-19 lockdown gp had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher BMI than the pre-COVID gp with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.99; 1.28), involving six studies and a total of 2363 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown gp, n = 1186; pre-COVID gp, n = 1177). There were significantly (p < 0.05) lower levels of total cholesterol (mmol/L), triglyceride (mmol/L) and LDL cholesterol (mmol/L), and higher levels of HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) in the post-COVID-19 lockdown gp compared with pre-COVID gp, although these results were not consistent following sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: The findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis have demonstrated that COVID-19 lockdown resulted in a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the levels of glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the effect of the lockdown on lipid parameters, including total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL and HDL cholesterol was not consistent.

Access to Healthcare during Lockdown, and its Effect on Glycaemic and Blood Pressure Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension- A Cross-sectional Study

Introduction: The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had an impact on the health of patients with preexisting co-morbidities due to increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality. This study looked at accessibility of healthcare and pharmacy services, preference for telemedicine and changes in the diet and lifestyle patterns of patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension during lockdown. Aim: To assess how the lockdown impacted the accessibility to healthcare, diet and lifestyle, and its overall impact on the glycaemic and blood pressure control of this population. Materials and Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was done at Father Muller Hospital, Thumbay (Dakshin Kannada district, Karnataka, India). It involved patients who had type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension and was done over a period of six months from May 31, 2020 (the day lockdown was lifted) to November 30, 2020. A questionnaire was administered. The questions related to proximity and accessibility of healthcare and pharmacy services, awareness, preference for telemedicine, availability of glucometer and blood pressure machines, and diet and lifestyle changes in lockdown were asked. The Body Mass Index(BMI), Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and blood pressure measurements, before and after the lockdown were compared. Data was tabulated on an excel worksheet and analysed by calculating frequency (n), percentages (%), mean +/- standard deviation and paired t-test. Results: A total of 115 patients were interviewed (64 females, 51 males). A 74.8% of patients reported their nearby health centres were open, but only 26.1% patients chose to visit. A 95.7% of patients had no difficulty in getting medications. Few (25.2%) were aware, and fewer (17.4%) had access to telemedicine during the lockdown. The percentage of 53% would prefer telemedicine, though how many used this facility was not assessed. Most (91.3% and 85.2%, respectively) were compliant with medication and the recommended diet. A 60.7% noted no change in levels of physical activity. Those who smoked or consumed alcohol did not report any increase in consumption. An insignificant increase was noted in the Body Mass Index (BMI), systolic blood pressure and the HbA1c levels after lockdown. Conclusion: Despite reduced access to healthcare facilities, BMI, glycaemic and blood pressure control were not significantly affected. This was probably due to the easy availability of medications, and the relatively few changes in the diet and lifestyle of most patients.

COVID-19 pandemic gestational diabetes screening guidelines: A retrospective study in Australian women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy and associated with significant perinatal and long-term morbidity. Temporary changes to the diagnostic testing for GDM have been recommended for the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to identify what proportion of women with GDM would be missed by the COVID-19 GDM screening criteria. Secondly an analysis of the relationship between HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG) and pregnancy outcomes will be completed. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all GDM patients at an Australian secondary hospital between January 2019 and February 2020. The proportion of women with GDM who would have been missed using the COVID-19 guidelines was assessed. Patients were divided into groups according to how their GDM was managed during the pregnancy: Diet, Metformin (MF), Insulin and MF + Insulin groups. Differences between the groups were compared using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis was completed using the Bonferroni test. Logistic regression was employed to further compare the differences between the groups. RESULTS: The study group comprised 237 patients. Sixty patients (25.3%) would not have had GDM detected in their pregnancy using the COVID-19 guidelines. FBG was the most significant predictor for intervention with medication for GDM (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: HbA1c and FBG are poor screening tests for GDM. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the OGTT should be given clinical priority in high risk patients. Elevated FBG is a significant predictor for needing medical management and could be used in the future to better enable individualised treatment.