[Checklist for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus for remote consultation]. / Checklist para pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en consulta telemática.

The current circumstances cause by the COVID-19 force primary care doctors to find out new ways to guarantee the health care of our type 2 diabetes patients. There is evidence that supports the remote consultation efficacy in the glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Facing the rapid adaptation of clinical practice to the remote consultation use, from de Diabetes Group of the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SemFyC), we have prepared a document embodied in a telematic action / monitoring algorithm in the care of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

[Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19]. / Resumen Ejecutivo del Consenso de expertos sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los iDPP-4 en el tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes y COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus. RESULTS: Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b). CONCLUSIONS: The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

Diabetes Does Not Increase the Risk of Hospitalization Due to COVID-19 in Patients Aged 50 Years or Older in Primary Care-APHOSDIAB-COVID-19 Multicenter Study.

The purpose of this study was to identify clinical, analytical, and sociodemographic variables associated with the need for hospital admission in people over 50 years infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to assess whether diabetes mellitus conditions the risk of hospitalization. A multicenter case-control study analyzing electronic medical records in patients with COVID-19 from 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2021 was conducted. We included 790 patients: 295 cases admitted to the hospital and 495 controls. Under half (n = 386, 48.8%) were women, and 8.5% were active smokers. The main comorbidities were hypertension (50.5%), dyslipidemia, obesity, and diabetes (37.5%). Multivariable logistic regression showed that hospital admission was associated with age above 65 years (OR from 2.45 to 3.89, ascending with age group); male sex (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.47-3.15), fever (OR 4.31, 95% CI 2.87-6.47), cough (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.28-2.80), asthenia/malaise (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.38-3.03), dyspnea (4.69, 95% CI 3.00-7.33), confusion (OR 8.87, 95% CI 1.68-46.78), and a history of hypertension (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08-2.41) or immunosuppression (OR 4.97, 95% CI 1.45-17.09). Diabetes was not associated with increased risk of hospital admission (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80-1.72; p = 0.38). Diabetes did not increase the risk of hospital admission in people over 50 years old, but advanced age, male sex, fever, cough, asthenia, dyspnea/confusion, and hypertension or immunosuppression did.

Real-World Use of Insulin Glargine U100 and U300 in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: DosInGlar Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the EDITION clinical trial programme, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving insulin glargine (IGlar) U300 required 10-15% more insulin than those receiving IGlar U100. This study sought to determine whether this difference was apparent in real-world practice. METHODS: In this observational, retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records in the Big-Pac® database (Real Life Data) relating to adult insulin-naïve patients with T2DM who initiated IGlar U100 or U300 treatment in Spain in 2016-2017 and remained on treatment for 18 months were selected. IGlar U100- and U300-treated patients were matched 1:1 (propensity score matching). The primary analysis compared changes from baseline in mean daily IGlar dose (U and U/kg) at 6 (± 2), 12 (± 2) and 18 (± 2) months between cohorts (paired t tests). Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: The IGlar U100 and U300 cohorts included 556 matched pairs (46.9% female) with the following mean (standard deviation) values at baseline, respectively: age 63.6 (12.8) versus 63.7 (11.9) years; years since diagnosis 9.5 (1.4) versus 9.5 (1.3); HbA1c 8.8 (1.3) versus 8.7 (1.5) %; weight 84.6 (16.9) versus 84.7 (17.1) kg. Mean IGlar dose at baseline was 0.19 U/kg/day (both cohorts). Patients receiving IGlar U300 showed a greater increase from baseline in IGlar dose at 6, 12 and 18 months [mean dose (U/kg/day) 5.1%, 10.3% and 12.8% greater, respectively, in IGlar U300-treated patients]. Mean HbA1c was 8.1% in both cohorts at 18 months. Mean (SD) weight at 18 months with IGlar U100 and IGlar300 was 86.8 (17.0) kg and 85.0 (17.1) kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In real-world practice, insulin dose was significantly higher in IGlar U300-treated than U100-treated patients at 6, 12 and 18 months, with similar reductions in HbA1c. At equal IGlar price/unit in Spain, the increased dose requirements of IGlar U300 would result in higher costs.