Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 105
Filter
1.
BMJ Sex Reprod Health ; 48(2): 123-127, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is the diagnostic and prognostic standard for clinical management of diabetes mellitus (DM). Unfortunately, patient adherence to guidelines for routine testing can be poor and there are significant gender-based disparities in DM management and outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that menstrual blood may be comparable to systemic blood for monitoring of common biomarkers. The objective of the present study was to assess the concordance of HbA1c levels between menstrual and systemic blood in healthy women and women with diabetes of reproductive age. METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort study, we enrolled healthy and diabetic (type 1 and type 2 DM) reproductive-age women (aged ≥18 and ≤45 years). Menstrual blood and venous systemic blood specimens were simultaneously obtained at time of menstruation, and analysed for HbA1c levels. Participants self-collected menstrual blood using a QPad, a novel, modified menstrual pad with an embedded dried blood spot strip. RESULTS: Among 172 participants, 57.6% were healthy and 42.4% had a diagnosis of either type 1 or type 2 DM. There were no significant differences in mean HbA1c values in menstrual and systemic blood across the overall cohort or within the diabetic subgroup. Furthermore, HbA1c levels between blood sources were robustly correlated and demonstrated a significant linear relationship. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong concordance in HbA1c levels between menstrual and systemic blood. Empowered by self-collection technologies, these findings suggest that menstrual blood may serve as a reliable, non-invasive and potentially cost-effective alternative to serum for HbA1c monitoring among reproductive-age women with DM.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Glycemic Control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Humans , Prospective Studies
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e220773, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1718200

ABSTRACT

Importance: Women with recent gestational diabetes (GDM) have increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Objective: To investigate whether a resource-appropriate and context-appropriate lifestyle intervention could prevent glycemic deterioration among women with recent GDM in South Asia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, participant-unblinded controlled trial investigated a 12-month lifestyle intervention vs usual care at 19 urban hospitals in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Participants included women with recent diagnosis of GDM who did not have type 2 diabetes at an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 to 18 months postpartum. They were enrolled from November 2017 to January 2020, and follow-up ended in January 2021. Data were analyzed from April to July 2021. Interventions: A 12-month lifestyle intervention focused on diet and physical activity involving group and individual sessions, as well as remote engagement, adapted to local context and resources. This was compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was worsening category of glycemia based on OGTT using American Diabetes Association criteria: (1) normal glucose tolerance to prediabetes (ie, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) or type 2 diabetes or (2) prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. The primary analysis consisted of a survival analysis of time to change in glycemic status at or prior to the final patient visit, which occurred at varying times after 12 months for each patient. Secondary outcomes included new-onset type 2 diabetes and change in body weight. Results: A total of 1823 women (baseline mean [SD] age, 30.9 [4.9] years and mean [SD] body mass index, 26.6 [4.6]) underwent OGTT at a median (IQR) 6.5 (4.8-8.2) months postpartum. After excluding 160 women (8.8%) with type 2 diabetes, 2 women (0.1%) who met other exclusion criteria, and 49 women (2.7%) who did not consent or were uncontactable, 1612 women were randomized. Subsequently, 11 randomized participants were identified as ineligible and excluded from the primary analysis, leaving 1601 women randomized (800 women randomized to the intervention group and 801 women randomized to usual care). These included 600 women (37.5%) with prediabetes and 1001 women (62.5%) with normoglycemia. Among participants randomized to the intervention, 644 women (80.5%) received all program content, although COVID-19 lockdowns impacted the delivery model (ie, among 644 participants who engaged in all group sessions, 476 women [73.9%] received some or all content through individual engagement, and 315 women [48.9%] received some or all content remotely). After a median (IQR) 14.1 (11.4-20.1) months of follow-up, 1308 participants (81.2%) had primary outcome data. The intervention, compared with usual care, did not reduce worsening glycemic status (204 women [25.5%] vs 217 women [27.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.92; [95% CI, 0.76-1.12]; P = .42) or improve any secondary outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that a large proportion of women in South Asian urban settings developed dysglycemia soon after a GDM-affected pregnancy and that a lifestyle intervention, modified owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not prevent subsequent glycemic deterioration. These findings suggest that alternate or additional approaches are needed, especially among high-risk individuals. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2017/06/008744; Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: SLCTR/2017/001; and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03305939.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control , Diabetes, Gestational/prevention & control , Diet , Exercise , Glycemic Control/methods , Life Style , Postpartum Period , Adult , Bangladesh , Blood Glucose , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/ethnology , Diabetes, Gestational/ethnology , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , India , Pregnancy , Sri Lanka , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Urban Population
3.
Diabetologia ; 65(3): 506-517, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1610630

ABSTRACT

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Lifestyle modification and weight loss are cornerstones of type 2 diabetes management. However, carbohydrate restriction may have weight-independent beneficial effects on glycaemic control. This has been difficult to demonstrate because low-carbohydrate diets readily decrease body weight. We hypothesised that carbohydrate restriction enhances the beneficial metabolic effects of weight loss in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This open-label, parallel RCT included adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 48-97 mmol/mol (6.5-11%), BMI >25 kg/m2, eGFR >30 ml min-1 [1.73 m]-2 and glucose-lowering therapy restricted to metformin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Participants were randomised by a third party and assigned to 6 weeks of energy restriction (all foods were provided) aiming at ~6% weight loss with either a carbohydrate-reduced high-protein diet (CRHP, percentage of total energy intake [E%]: CH30/P30/F40) or a conventional diabetes diet (CD, E%: CH50/P17/F33). Fasting blood samples, continuous glucose monitoring and magnetic resonance spectroscopy were used to assess glycaemic control, lipid metabolism and intrahepatic fat. Change in HbA1c was the primary outcome; changes in circulating and intrahepatic triacylglycerol were secondary outcomes. Data were collected at Copenhagen University Hospital (Bispebjerg and Herlev). RESULTS: Seventy-two adults (CD 36, CRHP 36, all white, 38 male sex) with type 2 diabetes (mean duration 8 years, mean HbA1c 57 mmol/mol [7.4%]) and mean BMI of 33 kg/m2 were enrolled, of which 67 (CD 33, CRHP 34) completed the study. Body weight decreased by 5.8 kg (5.9%) in both groups after 6 weeks. Compared with the CD diet, the CRHP diet further reduced HbA1c (mean [95% CI] -1.9 [-3.5, -0.3] mmol/mol [-0.18 (-0.32, -0.03)%], p = 0.018) and diurnal mean glucose (mean [95% CI] -0.8 [-1.2, -0.4] mmol/l, p < 0.001), stabilised glucose excursions by reducing glucose CV (mean [95% CI] -4.1 [-5.9, -2.2]%, p < 0.001), and augmented the reductions in fasting triacylglycerol concentration (by mean [95% CI] -18 [-29, -6]%, p < 0.01) and liver fat content (by mean [95% CI] -26 [-45, 0]%, p = 0.051). However, pancreatic fat content was decreased to a lesser extent by the CRHP than the CD diet (mean [95% CI] 33 [7, 65]%, p = 0.010). Fasting glucose, insulin, HOMA2-IR and cholesterol concentrations (total, LDL and HDL) were reduced significantly and similarly by both diets. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Moderate carbohydrate restriction for 6 weeks modestly improved glycaemic control, and decreased circulating and intrahepatic triacylglycerol levels beyond the effects of weight loss itself compared with a CD diet in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Concurrent differences in protein and fat intakes, and the quality of dietary macronutrients, may have contributed to these results and should be explored in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03814694. FUNDING: The study was funded by Arla Foods amba, The Danish Dairy Research Foundation, and Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg Frederiksberg.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Adult , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Dietary Carbohydrates , Glycemic Control , Humans , Liver/metabolism , Male , Weight Loss
4.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 107(2): 549-562, 2022 01 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633480

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Though posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM, occurring > 45 days after transplantation) and its complications are well described, early post-renal transplant hyperglycemia (EPTH) (< 45 days) similarly puts kidney transplant recipients at risk of infections, rehospitalizations, and graft failure and is not emphasized much in the literature. Proactive screening and management of EPTH is required given these consequences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to promote recognition of early post-renal transplant hyperglycemia, and to summarize available information on its pathophysiology, adverse effects, and management. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for "early post-renal transplant hyperglycemia," "immediate posttransplant hyperglycemia," "post-renal transplant diabetes," "renal transplant," "diabetes," and combinations of these terms. EPTH is associated with significant complications including acute graft failure, rehospitalizations, cardiovascular events, PTDM, and infections. CONCLUSION: Patients with diabetes experience better glycemic control in end-stage renal disease (ESRD), with resurgence of hyperglycemia after kidney transplant. Patients with and without known diabetes are at risk of EPTH. Risk factors include elevated pretransplant fasting glucose, diabetes, glucocorticoids, chronic infections, and posttransplant infections. We find that EPTH increases risk of re-hospitalizations from infections (cytomegalovirus, possibly COVID-19), acute graft rejections, cardiovascular events, and PTDM. It is essential, therefore, to provide diabetes education to patients before discharge. Insulin remains the standard of care while inpatient. Close follow-up after discharge is recommended for insulin adjustment. Some agents like dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have shown promise. The tenuous kidney function in the early posttransplant period and lack of data limit the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. There is a need for studies assessing noninsulin agents for EPTH to decrease risk of hypoglycemia associated with insulin and long-term complications of EPTH.


Subject(s)
Hyperglycemia/etiology , Hyperglycemia/therapy , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Glycemic Control , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/therapy , Transplant Recipients
5.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262714, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1639302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a significant public health problem, particularly among people living with poor education and economic statuses, including those with a unique dietary culture. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and identify the factors associated with suboptimal glycemic control among patients with type 2 DM during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional study was used to elicit information from DM patients attending six hospitals located in Chiang Rai Province, northern Thailand, between February and May 2021. A validated questionnaire and 5 mL blood specimens were used as the research tools. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) greater than 7.0% among DM patients at least two years after diagnosis was defined as suboptimal glycemic control. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to identify the associations between variables at the significance level α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 967 patients were recruited for this study; 54.8% 530 had suboptimal glycemic control, 58.8% were female, 66.5% were aged 50-69 years, and 78.5% were married (78.5%). Six variables were found to be associated with suboptimal glycemic control in multivariable logistic regression. Participants aged <49, 50-59, and 60-69 years had 3.32 times (95% CI = 1.99-5.53), 2.61 times (95% CI = 1.67-4.08), and 1.93 times (95% CI = 1.26-2.95) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control, respectively, than those aged ≥70 years. Married individuals had 1.64 times (95% CI = 1.11-2.41) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those ever married. Participants who consumed sticky rice had 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.19-2.61) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those who did not consume sticky rice in daily life. Participants who had been diagnosed with DM for 11-20 years and ≥21 years had 1.98 times (95% CI = 1.37-2.86) and 2.46 times (1.50-4.04) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control, respectively, than those who had been diagnosed ≤ 10 years. Participants who had experienced forgetting to take their medication had 2.10 times (95% CI = 1.43-3.09) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those who did not, and those who had their medical expenses covered by the national scheme had 2.67 times (95% CI = 1.00-7.08) greater odds of suboptimal glycemic control than those who self-paid. CONCLUSION: Effective health interventions to control blood glucose among DM patients during ongoing treatment are urgently required. The interventions should focus on patients aged less than 69 years, marital status, forgetting to take their medication, and a longer time since diagnosis, including reducing their sticky rice consumption. The effects of copayments should also be considered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Glycemic Control , SARS-CoV-2 , Age Factors , Aged , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Thailand/epidemiology
6.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 16(2): 102407, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1634135

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycemic control in critical illness has been linked to outcomes. We sought to investigate if COVID pneumonia was causing disrupted glycemic control compared to historically similar diseases. METHODS: At Intermountain Healthcare, a 23-hospital healthcare system in the intermountain west, we performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. We compared 13,268 hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia to 6673 patients with non -COVID-pneumonia. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 were younger had fewer comorbidities, had lower mortality and greater length of hospital stay. Our regression models demonstrated that daily insulin dose, indexed for weight, was associated with COVID-19, age, diabetic status, HgbA1c, admission SOFA, ICU length of stay and receipt of corticosteroids. There was significant interaction between a diagnosis of diabetes and having COVID-19. Time in range for our IV insulin protocol was not correlated with having COVID after adjustment. It was correlated with ICU length of stay, diabetic control (HgbA1C) and prior history of diabetes. Among patients with subcutaneous (SQ) insulin only percent of glucose checks in range was correlated with diabetic status, having Covid-19, HgbA1c, total steroids given and Elixhauser comorbidity score even when controlled for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who receive insulin for glycemic control require both more SQ and IV insulin than the non-COVID-19 pneumonia counterparts. Patients with COVID-19 who received SQ insulin only had a lower percent of glucose checks in range.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Glycemic Control/statistics & numerical data , Hyperglycemia/epidemiology , Pneumonia/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , COVID-19/blood , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Diabetes Mellitus/drug therapy , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Glycemic Control/methods , Hospitalization , Humans , Hyperglycemia/drug therapy , Insulin/administration & dosage , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia/blood , Retrospective Studies
7.
BMC Pediatr ; 22(1): 48, 2022 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Between March 18th and May 13th 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in Finland resulted in the closure of schools and the limitation of daycare (i.e. lockdown). Social distancing changed the daily routines of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Healthcare professionals were forced to adapt to the pandemic by replacing physical outpatient visits with virtual visits. However, the influence of the lockdown on glycemic control in these patients remained unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective register study from a pediatric diabetes outpatient clinic, we analyzed the glycemic data of T1D patients (n = 245; aged 4 to 16 years) before and under the lockdown. All the participants used continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM or iCGM), two-thirds were on insulin pumps (CSII), and one-third on multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) therapy. RESULTS: In our patient cohort, time in range (TIR, n = 209) and mean glucose levels (n = 214) were similar prior to and under the lockdown (mean change 0.44% [95%CI: -1.1-2.0], p = 0.56 and -0.13 mmol/mol [95%CI: -0.3-0.1], p = 0.17, respectively). However, children treated with CSII improved their glycemic control significantly during the lockdown: TIR improved on average 2.4% [0.6-4.2] (p = 0.010) and mean blood glucose level decreased -0.3 mmol/mol [-0.6-(-0.1)] (p = 0.008). The difference was more pronounced in girls, adolescents and patients using conventional insulin pumps. CONCLUSIONS: The glycemic control in T1D children did not deteriorate under the lockdown, and patients on CSII even improved their control, which suggests that social distancing might have allowed families to use the insulin pump more accurately as out-of-home activities were on hold.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 , Adolescent , Blood Glucose , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Child , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Female , Glycemic Control , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(3)2022 Jan 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1625602

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Blood Glucose , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Glycated Hemoglobin A , Glycemic Control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Triglycerides
9.
Intern Med ; 61(1): 37-48, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604725

ABSTRACT

Objective In this study, we investigated whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic affected glycemic control and blood pressure (BP) control in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods DM patients whose HbA1c level was measured regularly before and after the declaration of a state of emergency were included in this study. Some patients were given questionnaires about changes in their lifestyle to determine the factors affecting glycemic control and BP control. Results The median HbA1c level of the 804 patients increased significantly from 6.8% before the state of emergency to 7.1% and 7.0% during and after the state of emergency, respectively. This was in contrast to the decrease one year earlier due to seasonal variations. In the 176 patients who responded to the questionnaire, the HbA1c level also increased significantly during and after the state of emergency. The worsening of glycemic control was more pronounced in the group that had achieved HbA1c of <7% before the state of emergency than in those with higher values. Unlike the rise in HbA1c, the BP did not rise during the state of emergency but did rise significantly afterwards. There was no marked decrease in HbA1c or BP after the state of emergency, even in patients who responded that they were much more careful with their diet, ate less, or exercised more. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic worsened glycemic control and BP control, even in patients who perceived no marked change in their diet or exercise, suggesting that more active lifestyle guidance is necessary for good treatment of DM patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Diabetes Mellitus , Blood Glucose , Blood Pressure , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Glycemic Control , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Diabet Med ; 39(4): e14774, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583592

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Evidence suggests that some people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) experience temporary instability of blood glucose (BG) levels after COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to assess this objectively. METHODS: We examined the interstitial glucose profile of 97 consecutive adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T1DM using the FreeStyle Libre® flash glucose monitor in the periods immediately before and after their first COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome measure was percentage (%) interstitial glucose readings within the target range 3.9-10 mmol/L for 7 days prior to the vaccination and the 7 days after the vaccination. Data are mean ± standard error. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the % interstitial glucose on target (3.9-10.0) for the 7 days following vaccination (mean 52.2% ± 2.0%) versus pre-COVID-19 vaccination (mean 55.0% ± 2.0%) (p = 0.030). 58% of individuals with T1DM showed a reduction in the 'time in target range' in the week after vaccination. 30% showed a decrease of time within the target range of over 10%, and 10% showed a decrease in time within target range of over 20%. The change in interstitial glucose proportion on target in the week following vaccination was most pronounced for people taking metformin/dapagliflozin + basal bolus insulin (change -7.6%) and for people with HbA1c below the median (change -5.7%). CONCLUSION: In T1DM, we have shown that initial COVID-19 vaccination can cause temporary perturbation of interstitial glucose, with this effect more pronounced in people talking oral hypoglycaemic medication plus insulin, and when HbA1c is lower.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Glycemic Control , Vaccination , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Blood Glucose/analysis , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Glycated Hemoglobin A/metabolism , Glycemic Control/methods , Glycemic Control/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Vaccination/methods , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
11.
Intern Med ; 60(24): 3879-3888, 2021 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574992

ABSTRACT

Objective The stress brought on by changes in social conditions due to COVID-19 is diverse. However, there have been no studies examining the relationship between the type of stress felt by an individual due to such changes in social conditions and the degree of change in HbA1c, prompting us to conduct this study. Methods We conducted a collaborative study at two diabetes clinics. A total of 1,000 subjects responded to the questionnaire. Data on HbA1c and body weight before and after the declaration of the state of emergency were collected. Results We conducted a questionnaire on some stressors, but when comparing the two groups with respect to whether or not they felt stress from each item, only "school closures for children," seemed to be associated with a significant difference in the amount of change in HbA1c. In the stressed group, i.e. the group of parents who experienced stress due to their children's schools being closed, the HbA1c value changed from 7.30±0.78 to 7.30±1.13 (p=0.985). By contrast, in the unstressed group, the HbA1c value significantly decreased from 7.28±0.98 to 7.06±0.85 (p<0.001). In addition, as a result of comparing the amount of change between the 2 groups, a significant decrease was observed in the unstressed group compared with the stressed group (p=0.032). There was no significant difference in body weight change between the two groups. Conclusion Stress that cannot be avoided by one's own will, such as school closures for children, may affect glycemic control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Body Weight , Child , Glycemic Control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Conditions
12.
J Osteopath Med ; 122(2): 111-115, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575295

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, have become the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe COVID-19. Although the RECOVERY trial did not report adverse effects of corticosteroids, the METCOVID (Methylprednisolone as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19) study reported a higher blood glucose level in patients receiving methylprednisolone. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyze the association between corticosteroids and COVID-19-related outcomes in patients admitted to the medical ICU (MICU) for COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is an observational study of 141 patients admitted to the MICU between March 18 and June 7, 2020. Data on demographics, laboratory and imaging studies, and clinical course were obtained, including data on corticosteroid use. Bivariate analyses and logistic regression were performed between patient characteristics and mortality and successful extubation. RESULTS: Of the 141 patients, 86 required mechanical ventilation, 50 received steroids, and 71 died. Regarding demographics, patients had a median age of 58 (interquartile range [IQR] 48, 65), Hispanic (57.4%, n=81), and non-Hispanic Black (37.5%, n=53). The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (49.6%, n=70) and diabetes (48.2%, n=68). Lower blood glucose levels on admission (125.5 vs. 148 mg/dL, p=0.025) and lower peak blood glucose levels on corticosteroids (215.5 vs. 361 mg/dL, p=0.0021) were associated with lower prevalence of mortality. Patients who were successfully extubated had a lower admission blood glucose (126.5 vs. 149 mg/dL, p=0.0074) and lower peak blood glucose on corticosteroids (217 vs. 361 mg/dL, p=0.0023). CONCLUSIONS: Lower blood glucose on admission and lower maximum blood glucose on corticosteroids were associated with lower odds of mortality and successful extubation, regardless of preexisting diabetes. Hyperglycemia may be negating any potential benefit of corticosteroid therapy. These findings suggest that glucose control could be a parameter that impacts the outcome of patients receiving corticosteroids for COVID-19 pneumonia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Airway Extubation , Glycemic Control , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Arch Pediatr ; 29(1): 27-29, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561682

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy , Glycemic Control/methods , Hypoglycemic Agents/administration & dosage , Insulin/administration & dosage , Pandemics/prevention & control , Quarantine , Adolescent , Blood Glucose , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Glycated Hemoglobin A/metabolism , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Infusions, Subcutaneous , Insulin Infusion Systems/adverse effects , Male , Portugal/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Diabet Med ; 39(4): e14755, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550817

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid implementation of remote care delivery in type 1 diabetes. We studied current modes of care delivery, healthcare professional experiences and impact on insulin pump training in type 1 diabetes care in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The UK Diabetes Technology Network designed a 48-question survey aimed at healthcare professionals providing care in type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three healthcare professionals (48% diabetes physicians, 52% diabetes educators and 88% working in adult services) from approximately 75 UK centres (52% university hospitals, 46% general and community hospitals), responded to the survey. Telephone consultations were the main modality of care delivery. There was a higher reported time taken for video consultations versus telephone (p < 0.001). Common barriers to remote consultations were patient familiarity with technology (72%) and access to patient device data (67%). We assessed the impact on insulin pump training. A reduction in total new pump starts (73%) and renewals (61%) was highlighted. Common barriers included patient digital literacy (61%), limited healthcare professional experience (46%) and time required per patient (44%). When grouped according to size of insulin pump service, pump starts and renewals in larger services were less impacted by the pandemic compared to smaller services. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights UK healthcare professional experiences of remote care delivery. While supportive of virtual care models, a number of factors highlighted, especially patient digital literacy, need to be addressed to improve virtual care delivery and device training.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy , Health Personnel , Self-Management/education , Telemedicine , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Biomedical Technology/education , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/instrumentation , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Glycemic Control/instrumentation , Health Personnel/organization & administration , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Insulin Infusion Systems , Pandemics , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Patient Education as Topic/organization & administration , Remote Consultation/methods , Remote Consultation/organization & administration , Self-Management/methods , Self-Management/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
16.
Salud Publica Mex ; 63(6, Nov-Dic): 725-733, 2021 Nov 05.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1535012

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed), glycemic control in Mexico, and its associated factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from Ensanut 2018 (n=12 648) and 2020 (n=2 309). We defined diabetes as fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dl or HbA1c≥6.5% or previously diagnosed; glycemic control was defined as HbA1c<7%. We fitted Poisson regression models to assess the association between diabetes, glycemic control, and potential associated factors. RESULTS: The total prevalence of diabetes was 16.8% in 2018 and 15.7% in 2020. In 2018, 38% of adults with diabetes were unaware of their disease, while in 2020 this figure was 29%. Glycemic control was observed in 42% of participants in 2018 and 39% in 2020. Longer disease duration was associated with lower glycemic control, while older age, having a diet, and being affiliated to IMSS, Pemex, Sedena, or private healthcare were associated with better control. CONCLUSION: Mexico is among the countries with the highest diabetes prevalence. A high proportion of adults with diabetes did not have a previous diagnosis, and the proportion with glycemic control is low. Strengthening screening to achieve a timely diagnosis, and improving glycemic control, should be key actions in the management of diabetes.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Glycemic Control , Adult , Aged , Blood Glucose , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Humans , Mexico/epidemiology , Prevalence
18.
Acta Biomed ; 92(5): e2021399, 2021 11 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504261

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: COVID-19 pandemic determined a profound impact in everyday life and in routine follow-up of patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). In this context, telemedicine represented an important tool to guarantee a regular care for these patients. Aim of our work was to assess metabolic control before and after lockdown in the cohort of T1D patients followed-up by our Service, to evaluate the impact of restrictive measures and of disease management through telemedicine. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. Subjects were enrolled among children, adolescents and young adults affected by T1D and followed at the Regional Paediatric Diabetology Centre of the University-Hospital of Parma, Italy. We collected data about age, gender, ethnicity, anthropometric measurements, duration of disease, type of blood glucose monitoring used, type of insulin administration, daily insulin requirement and metabolic control, assessed using capillary HbA1c. RESULTS: We enrolled 139 patients, mean age 13.9 years. During lockdown, we reported significantly more contacts through telemedicine between patients and medical team. Global glycol-metabolic control significantly improved, without differences in daily insulin requirement. Patients with a previous poor-controlled diabetes showed a greater improvement. Finally, mean weekly hours of physical activity decreased significantly, without worsening in BMI z-score. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a global improvement in mean HbA1c, with a stronger result for patients with a previous non satisfactory control. In our setting, despite regulatory rules and physical and logistic limitations related to pandemic, no worsening of metabolic control has been shown for patients with type 1 diabetes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 , Telemedicine , Adolescent , Blood Glucose , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Glycemic Control , Humans , Life Style , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
19.
Prim Care Diabetes ; 16(1): 57-64, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487917

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to examine whether pandemic exposure impacted unmet social and diabetes needs, self-care behaviors, and diabetes outcomes in a sample with diabetes and poor glycemic control. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of participants with diabetes and poor glycemic control in an ongoing trial (n = 353). We compared the prevalence of unmet needs, self-care behaviors, and diabetes outcomes in successive cohorts of enrollees surveyed pre-pandemic (prior to March 11, 2020, n = 182), in the early stages of the pandemic (May-September, 2020, n = 75), and later (September 2020-January 2021, n = 96) stratified by income and gender. Adjusted multivariable regression models were used to examine trends. RESULTS: More participants with low income reported food insecurity (70% vs. 83%, p < 0.05) and needs related to access to blood glucose supplies (19% vs. 67%, p < 0.05) during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels. In adjusted models among people with low incomes, the odds of housing insecurity increased among participants during the early pandemic months compared with participants pre-pandemic (OR 20.2 [95% CI 2.8-145.2], p < 0.01). A1c levels were better among participants later in the pandemic than those pre-pandemic (ß = -1.1 [95% CI -1.8 to -0.4], p < 0.01), but systolic blood pressure control was substantially worse (ß = 11.5 [95% CI 4.2-18.8, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adults with low-incomes and diabetes were most impacted by the pandemic. A1c may not fully capture challenges that people with diabetes are facing to manage their condition; systolic blood pressures may have worsened and problems with self-care may forebode longer-term challenges in diabetes control.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Glycemic Control , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Care
20.
Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) ; 36(5): 1142-1146, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1485221

ABSTRACT

It has been suggested that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a negative impact on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, no study has examined yearly trends in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis of HbA1c concentrations during the early period of the COVID-19 outbreak (COVID-19 cohort) and then compared the yearly trend in the mean HbA1c level, along with fluctuations in HbA1c levels, with those during previous years (non-COVID-19 cohorts). We observed that the mean HbA1c level in patients with T2DM increased during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 outbreak. After 6 months, HbA1c levels in the COVID-19 cohort returned to levels seen in the non-COVID-19 cohorts. The data suggest that vulnerable patients with T2DM should be monitored closely during the early period of a pandemic to ensure they receive appropriate care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Glycated Hemoglobin A/analysis , Glycemic Control/trends , Adult , Blood Glucose/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL