Trial of Hybrid Closed-Loop Control in Young Children with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop control systems of insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of initiating a closed-loop system virtually are unclear. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, children who were at least 2 years of age but younger than 6 years of age who had type 1 diabetes to receive treatment with a closed-loop system of insulin delivery or standard care that included either an insulin pump or multiple daily injections of insulin plus a continuous glucose monitor. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level was in the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter, as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter or below 70 mg per deciliter, the mean glucose level, the glycated hemoglobin level, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 102 children underwent randomization (68 to the closed-loop group and 34 to the standard-care group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseline ranged from 5.2 to 11.5%. Initiation of the closed-loop system was virtual in 55 patients (81%). The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased from 56.7±18.0% at baseline to 69.3±11.1% during the 13-week follow-up period in the closed-loop group and from 54.9±14.7% to 55.9±12.6% in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference, 12.4 percentage points [equivalent to approximately 3 hours per day]; 95% confidence interval, 9.5 to 15.3; P<0.001). We observed similar treatment effects (favoring the closed-loop system) on the percentage of time that the glucose level was above 250 mg per deciliter, on the mean glucose level, and on the glycated hemoglobin level, with no significant between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter. There were two cases of severe hypoglycemia in the closed-loop group and one case in the standard-care group. One case of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving young children with type 1 diabetes, the glucose level was in the target range for a greater percentage of time with a closed-loop system than with standard care. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; PEDAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796779.).

Managing Diabetes in Pregnancy Before, During, and After COVID-19.

Background: Pregnant women with diabetes are identified as being more vulnerable to the severe effects of COVID-19 and advised to stringently follow social distancing measures. Here, we review the management of diabetes in pregnancy before and during the lockdown. Methods: Majority of antenatal diabetes and obstetric visits are provided remotely, with pregnant women attending hospital clinics only for essential ultrasound scans and labor and delivery. Online resources for supporting women planning pregnancy and for self-management of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using intermittent or continuous glucose monitoring are provided. Retinal screening procedures, intrapartum care, and the varying impact of lockdown on maternal glycemic control are considered. Alternative screening procedures for diagnosing hyperglycemia during pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are discussed. Case histories describe the remote initiation of insulin pump therapy and automated insulin delivery in T1D pregnancy. Results: Initial feedback suggests that video consultations are well received and that the patient experiences for women requiring face-to-face visits are greatly improved. As the pandemic eases, formal evaluation of remote models of diabetes education and technology implementation, including women's views, will be important. Conclusions: Research and audit activities will resume and we will find new ways for supporting pregnant women with diabetes to choose their preferred glucose monitoring and insulin delivery.

Tirzepatide versus Semaglutide Once Weekly in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of once-weekly tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide, a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist, are unknown. METHODS: In an open-label, 40-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1879 patients, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive tirzepatide at a dose of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg or semaglutide at a dose of 1 mg. At baseline, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was 8.28%, the mean age 56.6 years, and the mean weight 93.7 kg. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. RESULTS: The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -2.01 percentage points, -2.24 percentage points, and -2.30 percentage points with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg of tirzepatide, respectively, and -1.86 percentage points with semaglutide; the estimated differences between the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups and the semaglutide group were -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.28 to -0.03; P = 0.02), -0.39 percentage points (95% CI, -0.51 to -0.26; P<0.001), and -0.45 percentage points (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.32; P<0.001), respectively. Tirzepatide at all doses was noninferior and superior to semaglutide. Reductions in body weight were greater with tirzepatide than with semaglutide (least-squares mean estimated treatment difference, -1.9 kg, -3.6 kg, and -5.5 kg, respectively; P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and were primarily mild to moderate in severity in the tirzepatide and semaglutide groups (nausea, 17 to 22% and 18%; diarrhea, 13 to 16% and 12%; and vomiting, 6 to 10% and 8%, respectively). Of the patients who received tirzepatide, hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) was reported in 0.6% (5-mg group), 0.2% (10-mg group), and 1.7% (15-mg group); hypoglycemia was reported in 0.4% of those who received semaglutide. Serious adverse events were reported in 5 to 7% of the patients who received tirzepatide and in 3% of those who received semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, tirzepatide was noninferior and superior to semaglutide with respect to the mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to 40 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly; SURPASS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03987919.).

Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments to impose lockdown policies, thus impacting patients with chronic diseases, such as type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of lockdown on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients using a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion device during the nationwide lockdown. Children and adolescents aged 2-18 years followed up at the Pediatric Endocrinology Unit of Hospitalar São João in Portugal were included in the study. We collected data on the age, weight, insulin doses, and glycemic control of the patients before and after the restrictions. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients, 59 males, with a mean age of 12.5 years. Baseline data showed a suboptimal glycemic control with a median HbA1c of 7.9%. The lockdown was associated with an increase in the body mass index (BMI) of all patients (p = 0.009), particularly girls and older teenagers. Metabolic control deteriorated in the 10-13 age group (p = 0.03), with a 0.4% increase in HbA1c. CONCLUSION: To date, this is the largest study on the impact of lockdown on type 1 diabetes in patients using an insulin pump. The results highlight the importance of physical activity, parental supervision, and continuation of healthcare assistance through telemedicine in young individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Nursing interventions for people with type 1 diabetes and frequent hypoglycaemia.

Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong condition which affects all age ranges, for reasons unknown, and the UK has one of the highest incidences of this complex condition in the world. Type 1 diabetes is caused by autoimmune damage to the insulin-producing ß-cells found in the pancreatic islet cells, leading to severe insulin deficiency. People with diabetes need to achieve a target glyosylated haemoglobin level to avoid macro- and microvascular complications, but there is the associated risk of hypoglycaemic events. These can vary in severity and consequences but will likely always cause worry for the person living with diabetes. There are many risk factors and reasons to be explored when looking at hypoglycaemia. This case study explores the nursing interventions that can be safely worked through and prioritised, within the community setting, to allow people with diabetes to be safe from severe hypoglycaemia, thus improving their quality of life and safety, as well as reducing costs for the NHS.

Effectiveness of diabetes education including insulin injection technique and dose adjustment through telemedicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

AIMS: To study the feasibility of diabetes education through telemedicine in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 100 patients with DM who were admitted in a COVID isolation ward for management of COVID-19. Patients managed with multiple subcutaneous insulin injections were eligible. During teleconsultation, diabetes education including insulin injection technique was given by a diabetes educator via a phone call (audio and video) during hospitalization. They were also re-assessed after 2 weeks of discharge from the hospital via teleconsultation or in-person. RESULTS: Out of 100 patients, 72.0% had prior history of diabetes while 28.0% were newly diagnosed. The median age of our cohort was 56 years and median duration of diabetes was 7.0 years. Telemedicine as a mode of consult for diabetes education was accepted by 96.0% of patients during hospitalization. At 2 weeks' follow-up, 77.0% patients were following insulin instructions correctly and were satisfied with this mode of consultation. CONCLUSION: Diabetes education using telemedicine as a technology is feasible, acceptable, and effective in the management of most patients with DM. Telemedicine appears to be an effective way to replace routine visits in special situations.

Management of diabetes in elderly patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: current and future perspectives.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire population with the most deleterious effects in elders. Elders, especially those with diabetes, are at the highest risk of COVID-19 related adverse outcomes and mortality. This is usually linked to the comorbidities that accumulate with age, diabetes-related chronic inflammation, and the pandemic's psychosocial effects.Areas covered: We present some approaches to manage these complicated elderly patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the inpatient setting, we suggest similar (pre-pandemic) glycemic targets and emphasize the importance of using IV insulin and possible use of continuous glucose monitoring to reduce exposure and PPE utilization. Outside the hospital, we recommend optimal glycemic control within the limits imposed by considerations of safety. We also describe the advantages and challenges of using various technological platforms in clinical care.Expert opinion: The COVID-19 pandemic has lifted the veil off serious deficiencies in the infrastructures for care at both the individual level and the population level and also highlighted some of the strengths, all of which affect individuals with diabetes and COVID-19. We anticipate that things will not return to 'normal' after the COVID-19 pandemic has run its course, but rather they will be superseded by 'New Normal.'

Teleassistance for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use in chronic disease management has markedly increased during health emergencies due to COVID-19. Diabetes and technologies supporting diabetes care, including glucose monitoring devices, software analyzing glucose data, and insulin delivering systems, would facilitate remote and structured disease management. Indeed, most of the currently available technologies to store and transfer web-based data to be shared with health care providers. OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we provided our patients the opportunity to manage their diabetes remotely by implementing technology. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 virtual visits on glycemic control parameters among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the lockdown period. METHODS: This prospective observational study included T1D patients who completed 2 virtual visits during the lockdown period. The glucose outcomes that reflected the benefits of the virtual consultation were time in range (TIR), time above range, time below range, mean daily glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and glycemic variability. This metric was generated using specific computer programs that automatically upload data from the devices used to monitor blood or interstitial glucose levels. If needed, we changed the ongoing treatment at the first virtual visit. RESULTS: Among 209 eligible patients with T1D, 166 completed 2 virtual visits, 35 failed to download glucose data, and 8 declined the visit. Among the patients not included in the study, we observed a significantly lower proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) users (n=7/43, 16% vs n=155/166, 93.4% and n=9/43, 21% vs n=128/166, 77.1%, respectively; P<.001) compared to patients who completed the study. TIR significantly increased from the first (62%, SD 18%) to the second (65%, SD 16%) virtual visit (P=.02); this increase was more marked among patients using the traditional meter (n=11; baseline TIR=55%, SD 17% and follow-up TIR=66%, SD 13%; P=.01) than among those using CGM, and in those with a baseline GMI of ≥7.5% (n=46; baseline TIR=45%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=53%, SD 18%; P<.001) than in those with a GMI of <7.5% (n=120; baseline TIR=68%, SD 15% and follow-up TIR=69%, SD 15%; P=.98). The only variable independently associated with TIR was the change of ongoing therapy. The unstandardized beta coefficient (B) and 95% CI were 5 (95% CI 0.7-8.0) (P=.02). The type of glucose monitoring device and insulin delivery systems did not influence glucometric parameters. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the structured virtual visits help maintain and improve glycemic control in situations where in-person visits are not feasible.

Magnitude and associated factors of poor medication adherence among diabetic and hypertensive patients visiting public health facilities in Ethiopia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the magnitude and associated factors of poor medication adherence among diabetic and hypertensive patients visiting public health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A multi-site cross-sectional design was conducted from 1st through 30th of August 2020 at public health facilities of the study area. Adult outpatients with T2DM and hypertension visiting hospitals and health centers were included in the study. A proportion to size allocation method was used to determine the required sample size per facility. Data was collected using the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were used to analyze data. A 95% confidence interval and p≤0.05 statistical significance was considered to determine factors associated with poor medication adherence. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients were included in the present study. About 57% of the patients reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has posed negative impacts on either of their follow-up visits, availability of medications, or affordability of prices. And, 21% have reported that they have been affected in all aspects. The overall magnitude of poor medication adherence was 72%. Patients with extreme poverty were more likely to have good medication adherence (AOR: 0.59; 95%C.I: 0.36-0.97), whereas attendance to a health center (AOR: 1.71; 95%C.I: 1.02-2.85), presence of comorbidity (AOR: 2.05; 95%C.I: 1.13-3.71), and current substance use history (AOR: 11.57; 95%C.I: 1.52-88.05) predicted high odds of poor adherence. CONCLUSION: Over a three-fourth of the patients, in the study setting, have poor adherence to their anti-diabetic and antihypertensive medications. Health facility type, income level, comorbidity, and current substance use history showed a statistically significant association with poor adherence to medication. Stakeholders should set alternative strategies as perceived impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on medication adherence are high in the study area.

Therapeutic Potential of Metformin in COVID-19: Reasoning for Its Protective Role.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections present with increased disease severity and poor clinical outcomes in diabetic patients compared with their nondiabetic counterparts. Diabetes/hyperglycemia-triggered endothelial dysfunction and hyperactive inflammatory and immune responses are correlated to twofold to threefold higher intensive care hospitalizations and more than twice the mortality among diabetic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. While comorbidities such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension worsen the prognosis of diabetic COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 infections are also associated with new-onset diabetes, severe metabolic complications, and increased thrombotic events in the backdrop of aberrant endothelial function. While several antidiabetic medications are used to manage blood glucose levels, we discuss the multifaceted ability of metformin to control blood glucose levels and possibly attenuate endothelial dysfunction, inhibit viral entry and infection, and modify inflammatory and immune responses during SARS-CoV-2 infections. These actions make metformin a viable candidate drug to be considered for repurposing and gaining ground against the SARS-CoV-2-induced tsunami in diabetic COVID-19 patients.

The excess insulin requirement in severe COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis is related to the severity of respiratory failure and pre-existing diabetes.

Introduction: Severe COVID-19 has been anecdotally associated with high insulin requirements. It has been proposed that this may be driven by a direct diabetogenic effect of the virus that is unique to SARS-CoV-2, but evidence to support this is limited. To explore this, we compared insulin requirements in patients with severe COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to our intensive care unit between March and June 2020. A historical control cohort of non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis patients was identified from routinely collected audit data. Results: Insulin requirements were similar in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis after adjustment for pre-existing diabetes and severity of respiratory failure. Conclusions: In this single-centre study, we could not find evidence of a unique diabetogenic effect of COVID-19. We suggest that high insulin requirements in this disease relate to its propensity to cause severe respiratory failure in patients with pre-existing metabolic disease.

Association of Metformin with Susceptibility to COVID-19 in People with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes has emerged as an important risk factor for mortality from COVID-19. Metformin, the most commonly prescribed glucose-lowering agent, has been proposed to influence susceptibility to and outcomes of COVID-19 via multiple mechanisms. We investigated whether, in patients with diabetes, metformin is associated with susceptibility to COVID-19 and its outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched cohort study with active comparators using a large UK primary care dataset. Adults with type 2 diabetes patients and a current prescription for metformin and other glucose-lowering agents (MF+) were compared to those with a current prescription for glucose-lowering agents that did not include metformin (MF-). Outcomes were confirmed COVID-19, suspected/confirmed COVID-19, and associated mortality. A negative control outcome analysis (back pain) was also performed. RESULTS: There were 29 558 and 10 271 patients in the MF+ and MF- groups, respectively, who met the inclusion criteria. In the propensity score-matched analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios for suspected/confirmed COVID-19, confirmed COVID-19, and COVID-19-related mortality were 0.85 (95% CI 0.67, 1.08), 0.80 (95% CI 0.49, 1.30), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.34, 2.20) respectively. The negative outcome control analysis did not suggest unobserved confounding. CONCLUSION: Current prescription of metformin was not associated with the risk of COVID-19 or COVID-19-related mortality. It is safe to continue prescribing metformin to improve glycemic control in patients with.

Virtual training on the hybrid close loop system in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In Colombia, the government established mandatory isolation after the first case of COVID-19 was reported. As a diabetes care center specialized in technology, we developed a virtual training program for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who were upgrading to hybrid closed loop (HCL) system. The aim of this study is to describe the efficacy and safety outcomes of the virtual training program. METHOD: ology: A prospective observational cohort study was performed, including patients with diagnosis of T1D previously treated with multiple doses of insulin (MDI) or sensor augmented pump therapy (SAP) who were updating to HCL system, from March to July 2020. Virtual training and follow-up were done through the Zoom video conferencing application and Medtronic Carelink System version 3.1 software. CGM data were analyzed to compare the time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR) and glycemic variability, during the first two weeks corresponding to manual mode with the final two weeks of follow-up in automatic mode. RESULTS: 91 patients were included. Mean TIR achieved with manual mode was 77.3 ± 11.3, increasing to 81.6% ± 7.6 (p < 0.001) after two weeks of auto mode use. A significant reduction in TBR <70 mg/dL (2,7% ± 2,28 vs 1,83% ± 1,67, p < 0,001) and in glycemic variability (% coefficient of variation 32.4 vs 29.7, p < 0.001) was evident, independently of baseline therapy. CONCLUSION: HCL systems allows T1D patients to improve TIR, TBR and glycemic variability independently of previous treatment. Virtual training can be used during situations that limit the access of patients to follow-up centers.

Efficacy of telemedicine for persons with type 1 diabetes during Covid19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: Starting March 2020 the Italian Government imposed a lockdown to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. During lockdown outpatient visits were limited and telemedicine (TM) was encouraged. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from continuous or flash glucose monitoring systems shared through different cloud systems during the lockdown by subjects with type 1 diabetes and compared data obtained 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after structured telephonic visit. Variables considered were mean glucose, time spent in target (70-180 mg/dl), hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl) and hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dl), coefficient of variation, and length of sensor use. RESULTS: During the 4 weeks following the telephonic visit there was an improvement of glycemic control, with a significant reduction of mean glucose values (161.1 before vs 156.3 mg/dl after, p = 0.001), an increase of the time spent in target (63.6 vs 66.3, p = 0.0009) and a reduction of time spent in hyperglycemia (33.4 vs 30.5, p = 0.002). No changes were observed regarding glucose variability, time spent in hypoglycemia, and length of sensor use. Similar results were observed in subjects treated with multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. CONCLUSIONS: A structured telephonic visit appears to be an effective way to replace or integrate routine visits in particular conditions.

Management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia in the hospital.

Hyperglycaemia in people with and without diabetes admitted to the hospital is associated with a substantial increase in morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Professional societies have recommended insulin therapy as the cornerstone of inpatient pharmacological management. Intravenous insulin therapy is the treatment of choice in the critical care setting. In non-intensive care settings, several insulin protocols have been proposed to manage patients with hyperglycaemia; however, meta-analyses comparing different treatment regimens have not clearly endorsed the benefits of any particular strategy. Clinical guidelines recommend stopping oral antidiabetes drugs during hospitalisation; however, in some countries continuation of oral antidiabetes drugs is commonplace in some patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital, and findings from clinical trials have suggested that non-insulin drugs, alone or in combination with basal insulin, can be used to achieve appropriate glycaemic control in selected populations. Advances in diabetes technology are revolutionising day-to-day diabetes care and work is ongoing to implement these technologies (ie, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery) for inpatient care. Additionally, transformations in care have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote inpatient diabetes management-research is needed to assess the effects of such adaptations.

A Virtual Training Program for the Tandem t:slim X2 Insulin Pump: Implementation and Outcomes.

Insulin pump training has traditionally been performed in-person. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated vast increases in the number of virtual pump trainings for Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump starts. A customized structured pump training curriculum specifically tailored to virtual learning was deployed in early 2020, and included (1) preparation for training with use of the t:simulator app, (2) use of the teach-back method during video training, and (3) automating data uploads for follow-up. Retrospective analysis from >23,000 pump training sessions performed from January 1, 2020 to July 28, 2020 showed sensor time-in-range for up to 6 months after training was 72% (60%-81%) for virtual training versus 67% (54%-78%) for in-person training. Higher user satisfaction (4.78 ± 0.52 vs. 4.64 ± 0.68; P < 0.01) and higher user confidence (4.61 ± 0.75 vs. 4.47 ± 0.0.85; P < 0.01) were reported after the virtual sessions. Virtual pump training was well received and proved safe and effective with the new virtual training curriculum.

Insulin Use, Diabetes Control, and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19.

Background: The novel coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) has caused significant morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes. However, the effects of diabetes control including insulin use remain uncertain in terms of clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19.Methods: In this single-center, retrospective observational study, all adult patients admitted to Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, from March 1 through April 24, 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and diabetes were included. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data, insulin dose at home and at the hospital, other anti-hyperglycemic agents use, and outcomes were obtained. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with diabetes control and mortality.Results: Patients who used insulin at home had higher mortality compared to those who did not (35% vs 18% p = .015), this was true even after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities and a1c OR 2.65 95% CI (1.23-5.71) p = .013. However, the mean a1c and the median home requirements of insulin did not significantly differ among patients who died compared to the ones that survived. Patients who died had significantly higher inpatient insulin requirements (highest day insulin requirement recorded in units during hospitalization) 36 (11-86) vs 21 (8-52) p = .043 despite similar baseline a1c and steroid doses received. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities and a1c, peak insulin requirements remained significantly associated with inpatient mortality OR 1.022 95% CI (1.00-1.04) p = .044.Conclusion: Among diabetic patients infected with COVID-19, insulin therapy at home was significantly independently associated with increased mortality. Peak daily inpatient insulin requirements was also independently associated with increased inpatient mortality.

Diabetes and COVID-19: a major challenge in pandemic period?

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is a lifestyle disease and it has become an epidemic worldwide in recent decades. In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation, diabetes has become a serious health concern since large numbers of patients are vulnerable to die from the virus. Thus, diabetic patients affected by COVID-19 cause a major health crisis now. Reports show that large occurrence of diabetes makes it a serious comorbidity in COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is crucial to understand how COVID-19 affects diabetes patients. This paper has reviewed published literature extensively to understand the pattern, importance, care, and medication. RESULTS: This review summarizes the association between COVID-19 and diabetes in terms of susceptibility for pneumonia and other diseases. It also discusses the harshness of COVID-19 with diabetes populations and immunological impacts. It further adds the ACE2 receptor role in diabetes with COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Finally, this paper illustrates different types of diabetes management techniques, such as blood glucose management, self-management, mental health management, and therapeutic management. It also summarizes the current knowledge about diabetic patients with COVID-19 to fight this pandemic.