The Impact of Diabetes Education on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in SUS-Dependent Patients in a Northeastern Brazilian City.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is an important chronic disease that occurs worldwide. AIMS: This study aims to investigate how the use of the FreeStyle® Libre system in Unified Health System (SUS) patients impacts diabetes parameters in patients who receive education on proper insulin administration and the use of the continuous monitoring device, as well as how this affects patients without any concomitant multidisciplinary support in Sergipe, Brazil. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized study in a diabetes clinic in Sergipe, Brazil, using the flash method FreeStyle® Libre (Abbott). The participants were divided into two groups: one receiving diabetes education on CGM (continuous glucose monitoring), while the other did not. Before the intervention, the patient's treatment motivation and quality of life were assessed using a questionnaire, and baseline levels of glycated hemoglobin were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and the point of care AlereTM Afinion with boronate fixation. We compared first- and second-phase data with respect to glycated hemoglobin, mean interstitial blood glucose, time on and above target for hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, and mean hypoglycemic duration. RESULTS: In group A, which received the diabetes education intervention, there was a significant reduction in average HbA1c levels from 8.6% to 7.9% after 3 months (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in average glycemic values. Time above target decreased significantly from 50.62% to 29.43% (p = 0.0001), while time below target decreased from 22.90% to 20.21% (p = 0.002). There was no significant change in the number of hypoglycemic events, but the duration of hypoglycemia decreased significantly from 130.35 min to 121.18 min after 3 months (p = 0.0001). In Group B, there was no significant difference in mean HbA1c levels before (7.07%) and after (7.28%) sensor installation. This group maintained lower HbA1c levels compared to the other group. Average blood glucose levels also remained similar before (148.37 mg/dL) and after (154.65 mg/dL) the intervention. Although the time above the target glucose level increased significantly from 35.94% to 48.17%, the time at target decreased from 50.40% to 37.97%. No significant changes were observed in the time below target, the number of hypoglycemic events, or the duration of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that utilizing continuous glucose monitoring technology can enhance glycemic control, particularly in motivated, educated, low-income patients dependent on the SUS. To achieve positive results with FreeStyle Libre, it is imperative to allocate resources for multidisciplinary support.

A higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population in Brazil.

The historical and social vulnerability of quilombola communities in Brazil can make them especially fragile in the face of COVID-19, considering that several individuals have precarious health systems and inadequate access to water. This work aimed to characterize the frequency of SARS-COV-2 infections and the presence of IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in quilombola populations and their relationship with the presence of risk factors or preexisting chronic diseases in the quilombola communities. We analyzed the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, serological status, comorbidities, and symptoms of 1,994 individuals (478 males and 1,536 females) from 18 Brazilian municipalities in the State of Sergipe of quilombola communities, which were evaluated at different epidemiological weeks, starting at the 32nd (August 6th) and ending at the 40th (October 3rd) epidemiological week. More than 70% of studied families live in rural areas and they have an extreme poverty social status. Although we found a higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population, their SARS-CoV-2 reactivity and IgM and IgG positivity varied across the communities investigated. Arterial hypertension was the most risk factor, being found in 27.8% of the individuals (9.5% in stage 1, 10.8% in stage 2, and 7.5% in stage 3). The most common COVID-19 symptoms and comorbidities were headache, runny nose, flu, and dyslipidemia. However, most individuals were asymptomatic (79.9%). Our data indicate that mass testing must be incorporated into public policy to improve the health care system available to quilombola populations during a future pandemic or epidemic.

Does In-Person Visiting Affect the Number of COVID-19 Cases in Prisons?

Even with the current advances that have been made in regard to COVID-19, such as a better understanding of the disease and the steady growth in the number of vaccinated individuals, it remains a challenge for humanity. Dealing with the disease in prison settings has been particularly difficult. This study sought to discover whether in-person visiting affected the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the penitentiaries in the state of Sergipe (Brazil). We conducted a two-phase study (when visiting was suspended and after it recommenced) in seven penitentiaries in Sergipe using immunochromatography and nasopharyngeal swab testing to evaluate whether visiting affects the number of COVID-19 cases. In the first phase (n = 778), 57.6% of inmates reported risk factors and 32.5% were positive for COVID-19 (18.9% IgM, 24.2% IgG, 1% antigen). In the second phase, 19.6% tested positive (13.9% IgM, 7.9% IgG, 0.2% antigen). The occurrence of positive cases of COVID-19 and positive results (IgM and IgG) were significantly higher in the first phase. In the second phase, 56.7% of inmates had received visits and 18.7% were positive for COVID-19 (14% IgM, 7% IgG). Among those who had not received visits, 20.9% tested positive (13.8% IgM, 9.2% IgG, 0.5% antigen). There was no significant difference in positive cases/results between inmates that had and had not received visits. These findings suggest that, under the conditions assessed, visiting does not seem to affect the number of COVID-19 cases in prisons and reinforces the importance of sanitary measures to control dissemination.