Access to telehealth and changes in diabetes care patterns during the pandemic: evidence from a large integrated health system in the Southeast USA.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the role of telehealth in diabetes care and management during versus pre-COVID-19 pandemic. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included adults (≥18 years) with prevalent diabetes as of January 1, 2018, and continuously enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Georgia through December 31, 2021 (n=22,854). We defined pre (2018-2019) and during COVID-19 (2020-2021) periods. Logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs) assessed the within-subject change in adherence to seven annual routine care processes (blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), cholesterol, creatinine, urine-albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR), eye and foot examinations) pre versus during COVID-19 among telehealth users (ie, more than one telehealth visit per year per period) and non-telehealth users. Linear GEE compared mean laboratory measurements pre versus during COVID-19 by telehealth use. RESULTS: The proportion of telehealth users increased from 38.7% (2018-2019) to 91.5% (2020-2021). During (vs pre) the pandemic, adherence to all care processes declined in telehealth (range: 1.6% for foot examinations to 12.4% for BP) and non-telehealth users (range: 1.9% for foot examinations to 40.7% for BP). In telehealth users, average HbA1c (mean difference: 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.6%), systolic BP (1.62 mm Hg (1.44 to 1.81)), and creatinine (0.03 mg/dL (0.02 to 0.04)), worsened during (vs pre) COVID-19, while low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol improved (-9.08 mg/dL (-9.77 to -8.39)). For UACR, odds of elevated risk of kidney disease increased by 48% (OR 1.48 (1.36-1.62)). Patterns were similar in non-telehealth users. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use increased during the pandemic and alleviated some of the observed declines in routine diabetes care and management.

Disruption to routine diabetes care processes during the pandemic: evidence from a large integrated health system in the Southeast United States.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on annual adherence to seven diabetes care guidelines and risk factor management among people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included all adults (aged ≥18 years) with prevalent diabetes as of 1 January 2018, who were continuously enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA) through 31 December 2021 (n=22 854). Prevalent diabetes was defined as a history of at least one of a diagnosis code for diabetes, use of antihyperglycemic medication, or at least one laboratory value of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose or random glucose in the diabetic range. We defined pre-COVID (2018-2019) and during COVID (2020-2021) cohorts. Cohort-specific laboratory measurements (ie, blood pressure (BP), HbA1c, cholesterol, creatinine, urine-albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR)) and procedures (ie, eye and foot examinations) were determined from KPGA's electronic medical record data. We used logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE), adjusted for baseline age, to assess the within-subject change in guideline adherence (ie, at least one measurement per year per period) from pre-COVID to during COVID era overall, and by age, sex, and race. Linear GEE compared mean laboratory measurements pre and during COVID. RESULTS: The proportion of adults meeting each of the seven diabetes care guidelines decreased significantly during (vs pre) COVID (range in absolute reductions: -0.8% to -11.2%) with greatest reductions seen for BP (-11.2%) and cholesterol (-8.8%). Declines were similar across age, sex, and race subgroups. Average HbA1c and systolic BP increased 0.11% and 1.6 mmHg, respectively, while low-density lipoprotein cholesterol declined 8.9 mg/dL. The proportion of adults at high risk of kidney disease (ie, UACR ≥300 mg/g) increased from 6.5% to 9.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In an integrated healthcare system, the proportion of people with diabetes meeting guideline-recommended screenings decreased during the pandemic, coinciding with worsening glucose, kidney, and (some) cardiovascular risk profiles. Follow-up is needed to assess the long-term implications of these care gaps.

Niveles de vitamina D en médicos: ¿son los anestesiólogos el único grupo de riesgo? / Vitamin D levels among anesthesiologists and other physicians

Background Sun exposure is the main source of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Since anesthesiologists work inside operating rooms, they are identified as a deficiency risk group. As medical activity in general occurs indoors, added to the work excess and sedentary lifestyle, physicians in general have low sun exposure. Aim To investigate the determinants of vitamin D levels in physicians. Material and Methods Anesthesiologists and physicians not working in operating rooms were included. A survey that comprised working hours, diet, skin color, sunscreen use and outdoor activities was also applied. Measurements of vitamin D and parathormone levels in blood were performed. Results We analyzed samples from 81 volunteers. Median vitamin D values of the whole sample were in the range of insufficiency (25.3 [interquartile range 12.4] ng/ml). Multiple linear regression analysis detected no differences between anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists. A higher body mass index was a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency, (p = 0.025). The only protective factor was the intake of a vitamin D supplement (p < 0.01). Conclusions Anesthesiologists and other specialists were both at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Obesity was a risk factor and the use of a vitamin D supplement was the only protective factor.

[Vitamin D levels among anesthesiologists and other physicians]. / Niveles de vitamina D en médicos: ¿son los anestesiólogos el único grupo de riesgo?

Background Sun exposure is the main source of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Since anesthesiologists work inside operating rooms, they are identified as a deficiency risk group. As medical activity in general occurs indoors, added to the work excess and sedentary lifestyle, physicians in general have low sun exposure. Aim To investigate the determinants of vitamin D levels in physicians. Material and Methods Anesthesiologists and physicians not working in operating rooms were included. A survey that comprised working hours, diet, skin color, sunscreen use and outdoor activities was also applied. Measurements of vitamin D and parathormone levels in blood were performed. Results We analyzed samples from 81 volunteers. Median vitamin D values of the whole sample were in the range of insufficiency (25.3 [interquartile range 12.4] ng/ml). Multiple linear regression analysis detected no differences between anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists. A higher body mass index was a risk factor for vitamin D deficiency, (p = 0.025). The only protective factor was the intake of a vitamin D supplement (p < 0.01). Conclusions Anesthesiologists and other specialists were both at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Obesity was a risk factor and the use of a vitamin D supplement was the only protective factor.