Impaired glucose metabolism in patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity is associated with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Identification of risk factors of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical for improving therapies and understanding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogenesis. We analyzed 184 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Livingston, New Jersey for clinical characteristics associated with severe disease. The majority of patients with COVID-19 had diabetes mellitus (DM) (62.0%), Pre-DM (23.9%) with elevated fasting blood glucose (FBG), or a body mass index >30 with normal hemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) (4.3%). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with new and persistent hyperglycemia in 29 patients, including several with normal HbA1C levels. Forty-four patients required intubation, which occurred significantly more often in patients with DM as compared with non-diabetics. Severe COVID-19 occurs in the presence of impaired glucose metabolism in patients, including those with DM, preDM, and obesity. COVID-19 is associated with elevated FBG and several patients presented with new onset DM or in DKA. The association of dysregulated glucose metabolism and severe COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis involves a novel interplay with glucose metabolism. Exploration of pathways by which SARS-CoV-2 interacts glucose metabolism is critical for understanding disease pathogenesis and developing therapies.

Validation of the selection process of PhilHealth sponsored members in 4 barangays in a municipality in Batangas using the participatory action research

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to correlate the LGU list of PhilHealth Sponsored Members in a municipality of Batangas with the list of poor residents as identified by the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. METHOD: Interview of key informants documented the processes utilized by the LGU in determining PhilHealth beneficiaries for the Sponsored Program and the Participatory Action Research (PAR) survey in the classification of households into poor, middle and rich in four barangays of the municipality. The list of LGU Sponsored members was then cross matched with the PAR household classification. RESULTS:The comparison of the LGU list of Sponsored members and the household classification by the PAR survey showed a wide discrepancy: (1) 464 "Not Found" Sponsored households or 70% of the LGU's Sponsored list; (2) inclusion of the non-poor: 140 middle class families as classified by the PAR survey or 21.1% of the LGU's Sponsored list; and (3) exclusion of 413 or 87.5% of true poor families identified by the PAR Survey. Only 59 families or 8.9% of the LGU Sponsored list were classified as poor families by PAR. CONCLUSION:PAR offers communities, LGUs and the National Health Insurance Program a tool to validate the coverage of the Sponsored program. LGUs and the PhilHealth should consider such tool or similar tools to validate their identification, selection and enrollment of the poor, which is extremely vital in achieving universal coverage. Given the right tool, communities are in the best position to identify the poor for the Sponsored program. By way of collaboration with the underprivileged themselves, the academe has a role in assisting communities in acquiring collective awareness of their own situation and developing capacity for improving their lives. The academe also has a role in assisting LGUs in improving their health systems and national health programs in validating and improving their implementation. Further studies should be done to investigate the following: the identity of the "not found" SP members; the utilization of PhilHealth benefits by the poor; and the prospect of utilizing the PAR method by other non-academic institutions in monitoring the progress of community programs.

Validation of the selection process of PhilHealth sponsored members in 4 barangays in a municipality in Batangas using the participatory action research

Objective. The present study aims to correlate the LGU list of PhilHealth Sponsored Members in a municipality of Batangas with the list of poor residents as identified by the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. Method. Interview of key informants documented the processes utilized by the LGU in determining PhilHealth beneficiaries for the Sponsored Program and the Participatory Action Research (PAR) survey in the classification of households into poor, middle and rich in four barangays of the municipality. The list of LGU Sponsored members was then cross matched with the PAR household classification. Results. The comparison of the LGU list of Sponsored members and the household classification by the PAR survey showed a wide discrepancy: (1) 464 "Not Found" Sponsored households or 70% of the LGU's Sponsored list; (2) inclusion of the non-poor: 140 middle class families as classified by the PAR survey or 21.1% of the LGU's Sponsored list; and (3) exclusion of 413 or 87.5% of true poor families identified by the PAR Survey. Only 59 families or 8.9% of the LGU Sponsored list were classified as poor families by PAR. Conclusion. PAR offers communities, LGUs and the National Health Insurance Program a tool to validate the coverage of the Sponsored program. LGUs and the PhilHealth should consider such tool or similar tools to validate their identification, selection and enrollment of the poor, which is extremely vital in achieving universal coverage. Given the right tool, communities are in the best position to identify the poor for the Sponsored program. By way of collaboration with the underprivileged themselves, the academe has a role in assisting communities in acquiring collective awareness of their own situation and developing capacity for improving their lives. The academe also has a role in assisting LGUs in improving their health systems and national health programs in validating and improving their implementation. Further studies should be done to investigate the following: the identity of the "not found" SP members; the utilization of PhilHealth benefits by the poor; and the prospect of utilizing the PAR method by other non-academic institutions in monitoring the progress of community programs.