Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the glycalock study.

AIM: To assess the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this observational, multicentre, retrospective study conducted in the Lazio region, Italy, we compared the differences in the HbA1c levels of 141 subjects with T2D exposed to lockdown with 123 matched controls with T2D who attended the study centres 1 year before. Basal data were collected from 9 December to 9 March and follow-up data from 3 June to 10 July in 2020 for the lockdown group, and during the same timeframes in 2019 for the control groups. Changes in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c) and body mass index (ΔBMI) during lockdown were compared among patients with different psychological well-being, as evaluated by tertiles of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBS). RESULTS: No difference in ΔHbA1c was found between the lockdown and control groups (lockdown group -0.1% [-0.5%-0.3%] vs. control group -0.1% [-0.4%-0.2%]; p = .482). Also, no difference was found in ΔBMI (p = .316) or ΔGlucose (p = .538). In the lockdown group, subjects with worse PGWBS showed a worsening of HbA1c (p = .041 for the trend among PGWBS tertiles) and BMI (p = .022). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown did not significantly impact glycaemic control in people with T2D. People with poor psychological well-being may experience a worsening a glycaemic control because of restrictions resulting from lockdown. These findings may aid healthcare providers in diabetes management once the second wave of COVID-19 has ended.

Risk of cardiac autonomic neuropathy in latent autoimmune diabetes in adults is similar to type 1 diabetes and lower compared to type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS: Microvascular complications' risk differs between people with latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) and people with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate whether the prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy, a life-threatening complication of diabetes, also varies depending on diabetes type. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 43 adults with LADA, 80 with type 1 diabetes and 61 with type 2 diabetes were screened for cardiac autonomic neuropathy with recommended tests. Logistic regression models were used to test differences between diabetes types adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy was diagnosed in 17 (40%) participants with LADA, 21 (26%) participants with type 1 diabetes and 39 (64%) participants with type 2 diabetes (p < 0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for cardiac autonomic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes and in type 2 diabetes compared to LADA were 0.54 (95% CI: 0.25-1.20, p-value: 0.13) and 2.71 (95% CI: 1.21-6.06, p-value 0.015) respectively. Smoking (adj OR 3.09, 95% CI: 1.40-6.82, p-value: 0.005), HDL cholesterol (adj OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09-0.93, p-value: 0.037) and hypertension (adj OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.05-4.24, p-value: 0.037) were independent modifiable risk factors for cardiac autonomic neuropathy. Differences among diabetes types did not change after correction for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study offering a comparative evaluation of cardiac autonomic neuropathy among LADA, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, showing a lower risk of cardiac autonomic neuropathy in LADA compared to type 2 diabetes and similar compared to type 1 diabetes. This disparity was not due to differences in age, metabolic control or cardiovascular risk factors.

Clinical features of patients with type 2 diabetes with and without Covid-19: A case control study (CoViDiab I).

AIMS: To evaluate whether subjects with diabetes hospitalized for Coronavirus disease-19 (Covid-19) represent a subgroup of patients with high-risk clinical features compared to patients with diabetes without Covid-19. METHODS: In this case-control study 79 patients with type 2 diabetes out of 354 adults hospitalized for Covid-19 and 158 controls with type 2 diabetes but without Covid-19, matched for age and gender, were enrolled. Medical history and concomitant therapies were retrieved from medical charts and compared between cases and controls, controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Fully-adjusted multivariate logistic regression model showed that previous CVD history did not differ between patients with and without Covid-19 (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-3.32, p = 0.45). A higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 3.72, 95%CI: 1.42-9.72, p = 0.007) and of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR 3.08, 95%CI: 1.18-8.06, p = 0.022) and a lower prevalence of ever smokers (OR 0.30, 95%CI: 0.13-0.67, p = 0.003), of users of lipid lowering agents (OR 0.26, 95%CI: 0.12-0.54, p < 0.001), and of anti-hypertensive drugs (OR 0.39, 95%CI: 0.16-0.93, p = 0.033) were found among cases. CONCLUSIONS: CVD prevalence does not differ between people with diabetes with and without Covid-19 requiring hospitalization. An increased prevalence of COPD and of CKD in Covid-19 patients with type 2 diabetes is suggested. These findings aid to clarify the relationship between underlying conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection in the high-risk group of patients with diabetes.