ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors , Consensus , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors/pharmacology , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Humans , PandemicsABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Adult , Blood Glucose , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Female , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Insulin , Insulin Glargine/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SpainABSTRACT
Las circunstancias actuales provocadas por la COVID-19 nos obligan a los profesionales de atención primaria a idear nuevas formas de garantizar la atención sanitaria de nuestros pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 (DM2). Existen evidencias que respaldan la eficacia de la telemedicina en el control glucémico de los pacientes con DM2. Ante la rápida adaptación de la práctica clínica al uso de la telemedicina, el Grupo de Trabajo de Diabetes de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (SemFyC) optó por elaborar un documento de consenso plasmado en un algoritmo de actuación/seguimiento telemático en la atención de los pacientes con DM2.(AU)
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.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Algorithms , Checklist , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Diet Therapy/methods , Telematics , Remote Consultation , Health Services Accessibility , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus , Telemedicine , Primary Health Care , Consensus , Spain , PandemicsABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Checklist , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/therapy , Remote Consultation/methods , Combined Modality Therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diet Therapy/methods , Exercise Therapy , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Medication Adherence , Remote Consultation/standardsABSTRACT
No disponible
