Impacto de la alteración de la continuidad asistencial en los pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 durante la pandemia de COVID-19 / Impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in diabetes type 2 patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objetivo: Valorar la repercusión de la alteración de la continuidad asistencial en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Material y método: Estudio de seguimiento entre los años 2018 y 2020 de los pacientes con DM2 de un centro de salud. Las actividades asistenciales y preventivas realizadas para su seguimiento fueron comparadas con pruebas estadísticas adecuadas al tipo y distribución de cada variable para un nivel de significación p≤0,05. Resultados: La muestra inicial fue de 587 pacientes con hemoglobina glicosilada (A1c) en 2018 (54% varones), con una edad de 66±11 años en un rango de 29-91 años. En 2020 disminuyeron todos los indicadores de atención: se determinó A1c al 68% de los pacientes (382/558 tras 29 fallecimientos); el 59% permanecía con buen control, el 17% con mal control, el 10% mejoró y el 14% empeoró (p<0,001). Empeoraron menos los pacientes que tenían realizados ECG y retinografía en 2018, aunque no en 2020, que aquellos que no los tenían en 2018, pero sí en 2020 (16 vs. 25%; p<0,001 y 13 vs. 42%; p=0,002). Quienes disminuyeron sus visitas al médico de familia y enfermera presentaron menor empeoramiento que los que las aumentaron (14 vs. 26%; p<0,001 y 17 vs. 23%; p<0,001). Conclusiones: La desatención impidió el control del 32% de los pacientes. El peor control en 2020 fue menor en quienes estaban controlados en 2018, y en quienes disminuyeron su asistencia al centro de salud en 2020. Probablemente una adecuada formación pre-pandémica en autocuidados ha llevado al empoderamiento del paciente durante periodo pandémico (AU)

Aim: To assess the impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and method: Follow-up study with 587 primary care patients with DM2, and control according to the redGDPS-2018 criteria in 2018 and 2020. Activities carried out and control status of patients were compared using statistical tests appropriate to type and distribution of each variable, for a significance level P≤.05. Results: Sample was made up of 587 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) in 2018 (54% men), age of 66±11, in range of 29-91 years. All the care indicators decreased in 2020: A1c was determined in 68% of patients (382/558 after 29 deaths); 59% remained with good control, 17% with poor control, 10% improved and 14% worsened (P<.001). Those who had ECG and retinography performed in 2018 and not in 2020 show a lower degree of worsening than those who did not have them done in 2018 but they did in 2020 (16% vs 25%, P<.001 and 13% vs 42%, P=.002). Those who decrease their visits to family doctor and nurse show less deterioration than those who increase them (14% vs 26%; P<.001 and 17% vs 23%; P<.001). Conclusions: Inattention impeded control of 32% of the patients. Poor control in 2020 was lower in those who were controlled in 2018, and who decreased their attendance at the health center in 2020. Possibly adequate pre-pandemic training in self-care has led to the empowerment of the patient during a pandemic period (AU)

[Impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in diabetes type 2 patients during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Impacto de la alteración de la continuidad asistencial en los pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 durante la pandemia de COVID-19.

AIM: To assess the impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Follow-up study with 587 primary care patients with DM2, and control according to the redGDPS-2018 criteria in 2018 and 2020. Activities carried out and control status of patients were compared using statistical tests appropriate to type and distribution of each variable, for a significance level P≤.05. RESULTS: Sample was made up of 587 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) in 2018 (54% men), age of 66±11, in range of 29-91 years. All the care indicators decreased in 2020: A1c was determined in 68% of patients (382/558 after 29 deaths); 59% remained with good control, 17% with poor control, 10% improved and 14% worsened (P<.001). Those who had ECG and retinography performed in 2018 and not in 2020 show a lower degree of worsening than those who did not have them done in 2018 but they did in 2020 (16% vs 25%, P<.001 and 13% vs 42%, P=.002). Those who decrease their visits to family doctor and nurse show less deterioration than those who increase them (14% vs 26%; P<.001 and 17% vs 23%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inattention impeded control of 32% of the patients. Poor control in 2020 was lower in those who were controlled in 2018, and who decreased their attendance at the health center in 2020. Possibly adequate pre-pandemic training in self-care has led to the empowerment of the patient during a pandemic period.

[Effectiveness of the TG/HDL-C ratio to improve GLP-1 prescription in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care]. / Efectividad de la ratio TG/c-HDL en la mejora de la prescripción de GLP-1 en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 en atención primaria.

AIMS: Check the usefulness of ratio TG/HDL-C≥2.5 to improve the effectiveness of GLP-1 prescribing in patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2) in primary care, and determine whether any patient profile would higher benefit. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Barranco Grande Health Center, Tenerife. PARTICIPANTS: Random selection of patients with DM2 attended by 12 family doctors and 12 nurses. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Poor control according to the current criteria was compared to poor control according to the proposed rule. To determine who would benefit, the sociodemographic, clinical, therapeutic and follow-up characteristics were analyzed. Descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: No predominant characteristics were found in the patients who would be prescribed GLP-1 according to the proposed rule, but those that reached a significance P<.20 were included as potential explanatory factors in a multivariate binary logistic regression model. The adjustment of the model retained the factors of therapeutic non-compliance (OR 3.40 [1.58-5.02]; P=.003), evolution of DM2 less than 15 years (OR 2.74 [1.10-4.89]; P=.031), number of prescribed anti-diabetes drugs (OR 2.30 [1.88-2.81]; P<.001) and age under 65 years (OR 1.67 [1.08-2.58]; P=.021). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the rule that we propose for the prescription of GLP-1 (2018 recommendations of the GDPS network combined with the TG/HDL-C ratio≥2.5 or BMI≥30kg/m2), instead of the current criterion adopted by the National Health System, would allow to broaden the spectrum of application of the drug in patients with poor control of their DM2.