Awareness, knowledge and trust in the Greek authorities towards COVID-19 pandemic: results from the Epirus Health Study cohort.

BACKGROUND: To assess the level of knowledge and trust in the policy decisions taken regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic among Epirus Health Study (EHS) participants. METHODS: The EHS is an ongoing and deeply-phenotyped prospective cohort study that has recruited 667 participants in northwest Greece until August 31st, 2020. Level of knowledge on coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and COVID-19 severity was labeled as poor, moderate or good. Variables assessing knowledge and beliefs towards the pandemic were summarized overall and by sex, age group (25-39, 40-49, 50-59, ≥60 years) and period of report (before the lifting of lockdown measures in Greece: March 30th to May 3rd, and two post-lockdown time periods: May 4th to June 31st, July 1st to August 31st). A hypothesis generating exposure-wide association analysis was conducted to evaluate the associations between 153 agnostically-selected explanatory variables and participants' knowledge. Correction for multiple comparisons was applied using a false discovery rate (FDR) threshold of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 563 participants (49 years mean age; 60% women) had available information on the standard EHS questionnaire, the clinical and biochemical measurements, and the COVID-19-related questionnaire. Percentages of poor, moderate and good knowledge status regarding COVID-19 were 4.5, 10.0 and 85.6%, respectively. The majority of participants showed absolute or moderate trust in the Greek health authorities for the management of the epidemic (90.1%), as well as in the Greek Government (84.7%) and the official national sources of information (87.4%). Trust in the authorities was weaker in younger participants and those who joined the study after the lifting of lockdown measures (p-value≤0.001). None of the factors examined was associated with participants' level of knowledge after correction for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: High level of knowledge about the COVID-19 pandemic and trust in the Greek authorities was observed, possibly due to the plethora of good quality publicly available information and the timely management of the pandemic at its early stages in Greece. Information campaigns for the COVID-19 pandemic should be encouraged even after the lifting of lockdown measures to increase public awareness.

Difference on Glucose Profile From Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Prediabetes vs. Normoglycemic Individuals: A Matched-Pair Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive characteristics of the glycemic profile for prediabetes derived by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are unknown. We evaluate the difference of CGM profiles between individuals with prediabetes and normoglycemic individuals, including the response to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). METHODS: Individuals with prediabetes matched for age, sex, and BMI with normoglycemic individuals were instructed to use professional CGM for 1 week. OGTT was performed on the second day. The primary outcomes were percentages of glucose readings time below range (TBR): <54 or <70 mg/dL, time in range (TIR): 70 to 180 mg/dL, and time above range (TAR): >180 or >250 mg/dL. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated following the OGTT. Glucose variability was depicted by coefficient of variation (CV), SD, and mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE). Wilcoxon sign-ranked test, McNemar mid P-test and linear regression models were employed. RESULTS: In all, 36 participants (median age 51 years; median body mass index [BMI] = 26.4 kg/m2) formed 18 matched pairs. Statistically significant differences were observed for 24-hour time in range (TIR; median 98.5% vs. 99.9%, P = .013), time above range (TAR) >180 mg/dl (0.4% vs. 0%, P = .0062), and 24-hour mean interstitial glucose (113.8 vs. 108.8 mg/dL, P = .0038) between people with prediabetes compared to normoglycemic participants. Statistically significant differences favoring the normoglycemic group were found for glycemic variability indexes (median CV 15.2% vs. 11.9%, P = .0156; median MAGE 44.3 vs. 33.3 mg/dL, P = 0.0043). Following OGTT, the AUC was significantly lower in normoglycemic compared to the prediabetes group (median 18615.3 vs. 16370.0, P = .0347 for total and 4666.5 vs. 2792.7, P = .0429 for incremental 2-hour post OGTT). CONCLUSION: Individuals with prediabetes have different glucose profiles compared to normoglycemic individuals. CGM might be helpful in individuals with borderline glucose values for a more accurate reclassification.