Effect of glucose variability on the mortality of adults aged 75 years and over during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, only one study has examined the association between glucose variability (GV) and mortality in the elderly population with diabetes. GV was assessed by HbA1c, and a J-shaped curve was observed in the relationship between HbA1c thresholds and mortality. No study of GV was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and its lockdown. This study aims to evaluate whether GV is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients aged 75 years or older with and without COVID-19 who were followed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and its lockdown measures. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 407,492 patients from the AGED-MADRID dataset aged 83.5 (SD 5.8) years; 63.2% were women, and 29.3% had diabetes. GV was measured by the coefficient of variation of fasting plasma glucose (CV-FPG) over 6 years of follow-up (2015-2020). The outcome measure was all-cause mortality in 2020. Four models of logistic regression were performed, from simple (age, sex) to fully adjusted, to assess the effect of CV-FPG on all-cause mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up, 34,925 patients died (14,999 women and 19,926 men), with an all-cause mortality rate of 822.3 per 10,000 person-years (95% confidence interval (CI), 813.7 to 822.3) (739 per 10,000; 95% CI 728.7 to 739.0 in women and 967.1 per 10,000; 95% CI 951.7 to 967.2 in men). The highest quartile of CV-FPG was significantly more common in the deceased group (40.1% vs. 23.6%; p < 0.001). In the fully adjusted model including dementia (Alzheimer's disease) and basal FPG, the odds ratio for mortality ranged from 1.88 to 2.06 in patients with T2DM and from 2.30 to 2.61 in patients with normoglycaemia, according to different sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GV has clear implications for clinical practice, as its assessment as a risk prediction tool should be included in the routine follow-up of the elderly and in a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Electronic health records can incorporate tools that allow its calculation, and with this information, clinicians will have a broader view of the medium- and long-term prognosis of their patients.

External validation of three diabetes prediction scores in a Spanish cohort: does adding high risk for depression improve the validation of the FINDRISC score (FINDRISC-MOOD)?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the external validity of the FINDRISC, DESIR and ADA risk scores for the prediction of diabetes in a Spanish population aged >45 years and to test the possible improvement of FINDRISC by adding a new variable of high risk of depression when Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) questionnaire score ≥10 (FINDRISC-MOOD). DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: 10 primary healthcare centres in the north of the city of Madrid (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1242 participants without a history of diabetes and with 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) plasma glucose <200 mg/dL (<11.1 mmol/L) were followed up for 7.3 years (median) using their electronic health records (EHRs) and telephone contact. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diabetes risk scores (FINDRISC, DESIR, ADA), PHQ-9 questionnaire and 2-hour-OGTT were measured at baseline. Incident diabetes was defined as treatment for diabetes, fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL (≥7.0 mmol/L), new EHR diagnosis or self-reported diagnosis. External validation was performed according to optimal cut-off, sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index. Comparison between diabetes risk scores, including FINDRISC-MOOD (original FINDRISC score plus five points if PHQ-9 ≥10), was measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: During follow-up, 104 (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.8 to 9.9) participants developed diabetes and 185 had a PHQ-9 score ≥10. The AUROC values were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72) for FINDRISC-MOOD and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.71) for the original FINDRISC. The AUROCs for DESIR and ADA were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69), respectively. There were no significant differences in AUROC between FINDRISC-MOOD and the other scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results of FINDRISC-MOOD were like those of the other risk scores and do not allow it to be recommended for clinical use.