Baseline haemoglobin A1c and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization among patients with diabetes in the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network.

AIMS: To examine the association between baseline glucose control and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and in-hospital death among patients with diabetes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients in the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network with a diabetes diagnosis and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement in the year prior to an index date of March 15, 2020. Patients were divided into four exposure groups based on their most recent HbA1c measurement (in mmol/mol): 39-46 (5.7%-6.4%), 48-57 (6.5%-7.4%), 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%), and ≥86 (10%). Time to COVID-19 hospitalization was compared in the four groups in a propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for potential confounders. Patients were followed until June 15, 2020. In-hospital death was examined as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of 168,803 patients who met inclusion criteria; 50,016 patients had baseline HbA1c 39-46 (5.7%-6.4%); 54,729 had HbA1c 48-57 (6.5-7.4%); 47,640 had HbA1c 58-85 (7.5^%-9.9%) and 16,418 had HbA1c ≥86 (10%). Compared with patients with HbA1c 48-57 (6.5%-7.4%), the risk of hospitalization was incrementally greater for those with HbA1c 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.34) and HbA1c ≥86 (10%) (aHR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19-1.64). The risk of COVID-19 in-hospital death was increased only in patients with HbA1c 58-85 (7.5%-9.9%) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06, 1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes patients with high baseline HbA1c had a greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, although association between HbA1c and in-hospital death was less consistent. Preventive efforts for COVID-19 should be focused on diabetes patients with poor glucose control.

Three approaches to glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated diabetes: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: For the nearly 75% of patients living with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) that do not use insulin, decisions regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can be especially problematic. While in theory SMBG holds great promise for sparking favorable behavior change, it is a resource intensive activity without firmly established patient benefits. This study describes our study protocol to assess the impact of three different SMBG testing approaches on patient-centered outcomes in patients with non-insulin treated T2DM within a community-based, clinic setting. METHODS/DESIGN: Using stakeholder engagement approach, we developed and implemented a pragmatic trial of patient with non-insulin treated T2DM patients from five primary care practices randomized to one of three SMBG regimens: 1) no testing; 2) once daily testing with standard feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient through the glucose meter; and 3) once daily testing with enhanced patient feedback consisting of glucose values being immediately reported to the patient PLUS automated, tailored feedback messaging delivered to the patient through the glucose meter following each testing. Main outcomes assessed at 52 weeks include quality of life and glycemic control. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial seeks to better understand the value of SMBG in non-insulin treated patients with T2DM. This paper outlines the protocol used to implement this study in fifteen community-based primary care practices and highlights the impact of stakeholder involvement from the earliest stages of project conception and implementation. Plans for stakeholder involvement for result dissemination are also discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02033499 , January 9, 2014.

Scientists plan a comeback for Ukraine's war-ravaged forests.

Destruction could open the door to management reforms.

Shore patrol.

Researchers are ringing the Atlantic with hundreds of sensors in a bid to track how ocean warming is affecting coastal ecosystems.

Zimbabwe find illuminates dawn of the dinosaurs.

Nearly complete specimen shows earliest dinosaurs needed a temperate climate.

Innovative approaches to reduce diabetes costs.

According to the American Diabetes Association, the cost of treating diabetes in North Carolina was approximately $5.3 billion in 2006. Reigning in diabetes-related costs requires collaboration between third-party payers, health care professionals, and people with diabetes. This article reviews innovative policy changes that affect all 3 groups and are intended to improve diabetes-associated care and costs.

Public health case studies in diabetes prevention and control: innovation, partnerships, and funding.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, we conducted case studies of 4 North Carolina local health departments (LHDs) that scored highly on an index of diabetes prevention and control performance, to explore characteristics that may serve as barriers or facilitators of diabetes prevention and control services. METHODS: Case studies involving in-depth interviews were conducted at 4 LHDs. Sites were selected on the basis of 2 variables, known external funding for diabetes services and population size, that were associated with performance in diabetes prevention and control in a 2005 survey of all North Carolina LHDs. Fourteen interviews (individual and group) were conducted among 17 participants from the 4 LHDs. The main outcome measures were LHD characteristics that facilitate or hinder the performance of diabetes programs and services. RESULTS: Interviews revealed that all 4 high-performing LHDs had received some sort of funding from a source external to the LHD. Case study participants indicated that barriers to additional service delivery included low socioeconomic status of the population and lack of financial resources. Having a diabetes self-management education program that was recognized by the American Diabetes Association appeared to be a facilitator of diabetes services provision. Other facilitators were leadership and staff commitment, which appeared to facilitate the leveraging of partnerships and funding opportunities, leading to enhanced service delivery. LIMITATIONS: The small number of LHDs participating in the study and the cross-sectional study design were limitations. CONCLUSION: Leadership, staff commitment, partnership leveraging, and funding appear to be associated with LHD performance in diabetes prevention and control services. These factors should be further studied in future public health systems and services research.

The public health role in the primary prevention of diabetes: recommendations from the chronic disease directors' project.

AIM: The article reports on the recommendations from the Diabetes Primary Prevention Project that was initiated and funded by the Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and developed by the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors. METHOD: Essential components of statewide programs are delineated for effective interventions for diabetes primary prevention. The recommendations were derived from a structured process that is detailed on the basis of a cross-comparison of state-level diabetes prevention initiatives in six states where such programs were most developed. RESULTS: The recommendations focus on state-level partnerships, statewide program planning, required resources, policies, benchmarks for progress, and data collection. CONCLUSION: Illustrations are provided regarding how the project influenced the six participating states in further developing their programs for the primary prevention of diabetes.