Glycemic Gap Predicts Mortality in a Large Multicenter Cohort Hospitalized With COVID-19.

CONTEXT: Diabetes or hyperglycemia at admission are established risk factors for adverse outcomes during hospitalization for COVID-19, but the impact of prior glycemic control is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the associations between admission variables, including glycemic gap, and adverse clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We examined the relationship between clinical predictors, including acute and chronic glycemia, and clinical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and mortality among 1786 individuals with diabetes or hyperglycemia (glucose > 10 mmol/L twice in 24 hours) who were admitted from March 2020 through February 2021 with COVID-19 infection at 5 university hospitals in the eastern United States. RESULTS: The cohort was 51.3% male, 53.3% White, 18.8% Black, 29.0% Hispanic, with age = 65.6 ± 14.4 years, BMI = 31.5 ± 7.9 kg/m2, glucose = 12.0 ± 7.5 mmol/L [216 ± 135 mg/dL], and HbA1c = 8.07% ± 2.25%. During hospitalization, 38.9% were admitted to the ICU, 22.9% received MV, and 10.6% died. Age (P < 0.001) and admission glucose (P = 0.014) but not HbA1c were associated with increased risk of mortality. Glycemic gap, defined as admission glucose minus estimated average glucose based on HbA1c, was a stronger predictor of mortality than either admission glucose or HbA1c alone (OR = 1.040 [95% CI: 1.019, 1.061] per mmol/L, P < 0.001). In an adjusted multivariable model, glycemic gap, age, BMI, and diabetic ketoacidosis on admission were associated with increased mortality, while higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and use of any diabetes medication were associated with lower mortality (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative hyperglycemia, as measured by the admission glycemic gap, is an important marker of mortality risk in COVID-19.

Achieving Equity in Diabetes Research: Borrowing From the Field of Quality Improvement Using a Practical Framework and Improvement Tools.

There are limited tools to address equity in diabetes research and clinical trials. The T1D Exchange has established a 10-step equity framework to advance equity in diabetes research. Herein, the authors outline this approach and expand on its practical application.

Satisfaction and Concerns with Telemedicine Endocrine Care of Patients with Cystic Fibrosis.

Introduction: Patients with chronic health conditions are at high risk for severe COVID-19 infections, making telemedicine for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) particularly relevant. There are limited data regarding provider perspectives on caring for patients with CF using telemedicine, particularly for those with CFRD. Methods: Surveys were administered to patients with CF (with and without CFRD) and to adult and pediatric endocrinologists who specialize in CF. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture; t-tests were used to compare total mean scores of Likert scale questions. The differences in responses were performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test. Variables were assessed for normality and we performed the Mann-Whitney test. No change in the results of the hypothesis test was found. All results were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Results: Eighteen patients (n = 9 CFRD) and 21 providers responded. Both groups reported high satisfaction with telemedicine overall (83.3%; 71.4%), convenience (94.4%; 85.7%), and adequate time during the visit (94.4%; 76.2%), and the majority would recommend telemedicine to others (94.4%; 95.2%). Lack of in-person examination components was of more concern to providers than patients: height/weight (p < 0.001), vitals (p < 0.001), and glycated hemoglobin (p < 0.001). There was no difference in provider perception in treatment of CFRD compared to type 1 diabetes (T1D). Common themes of open-ended questions included ease in attending telemedicine appointments (patients) and decrease in "no shows" (providers). Discussion: Patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine was high. The lack of typical components of face-to-face visits was more concerning for providers when compared to patients. Provider concern regarding lack of components specific to diabetes was similar regarding CFRD and T1D.

Diabetes Education and Support Tele-Visit Needs Differ in Duration, Content, and Satisfaction in Older Versus Younger Adults.

Background: Diabetes education and support are critical components of diabetes care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when telemedicine took the place of in-person visits, remote Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist (CDCES) services were offered to address diabetes education and support. Specific needs for older adults, including the time required to provide education and support remotely, have not been previously reported. Methods: Adults with diabetes (primarily insulin-requiring) were referred to remote CDCESs. Utilization was individualized based on patient needs and preferences. Topics discussed, patient satisfaction, and time spent in each tele-visit were evaluated by diabetes type, age, sex, insurance type, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), pump, and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) usage. t-Tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson correlations were employed as appropriate. Results: Adults (n = 982; mean age 48.4 years, 41.0% age ≥55 years) with type 1 diabetes (n = 846) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 136, 86.0% insulin-treated), 50.8% female; 19.0% Medicaid, 29.1% Medicare, 48.9% private insurance; mean HbA1c 8.4% (standard deviation 1.9); and 46.6% pump and 64.5% CGM users had 2203 tele-visits with remote CDCESs over 5 months. Of those referred, 272 (21.7%) could not be reached or did not receive education/support. Older age (≥55 years), compared with 36-54 year olds and 18-35 year olds, respectively, was associated with more tele-visits (mean 2.6 vs. 2.2 and 1.8) and more time/tele-visits (mean 20.4 min vs. 16.5 min and 14.8 min; p < 0.001) as was coverage with Medicare (mean 2.8 visits) versus private insurance (mean 2.0 visits; p < 0.001) and lower participant satisfaction. The total mean time spent with remote CDCESs was 53.1, 37.4, and 26.2 min for participants aged ≥55, 36-54, and 18-35 years, respectively. During remote tele-visits, the most frequently discussed topics per participant were CGM and insulin pump use (73.4% and 49.7%). After adjustment for sex and diabetes type, older age was associated with lack of access to a computer, tablet, smartphone, or internet (p < 0.001), and need for more education related to CGM (p < 0.001), medications (p = 0.015), hypoglycemia (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia (p = 0.048). Discussion: Most remote CDCES tele-visits were successfully completed. Older adults/those with Medicare required more time to fulfill educational needs. Although 85.7% of individual sessions lasted <30 min, which does not meet current Medicare requirements for reimbursement, multiple visits were common with a total time of >50 min for most older participants. This suggests that new reimbursement models are needed. Education/support needs of insulin-treated older adults should be a focus of future studies.

Trends in Type 1 Diabetic Ketoacidosis During COVID-19 Surges at 7 US Centers: Highest Burden on non-Hispanic Black Patients.

CONTEXT: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with type 1 diabetes remains poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: We examined United States trends in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during the COVID-19 pandemic at 7 large US medical centers and factors associated with these trends. METHODS: We compared DKA events among children and adults with T1D during COVID-19 surge 1 (March-May 2020) and COVID-19 surge 2 (August-October 2020) to the same periods in 2019. Analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. RESULTS: We found no difference in the absolute number of T1D patients experiencing DKA in 2019 vs 2020. However, a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Black (NHB) individuals experienced DKA in 2019 than non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals (44.6% vs 16.0%; P < .001), and this disparity persisted during the COVID-19 pandemic (48.6% vs 18.6%; P < .001). DKA was less common among patients on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump in 2020 compared to 2019 (CGM: 13.2% vs 15.0%, P < .001; insulin pump: 8.0% vs 10.6%, P < .001). In contrast to annual DKA totals, a higher proportion of patients had DKA during COVID-19 surges 1 and 2 compared to the same months in 2019 (surge 1: 7.1% vs 5.4%, P < .001; surge 2: 6.6% vs 5.7%, P = .001). CONCLUSION: DKA frequency increased among T1D patients during COVID-19 surges with highest frequency among NHB patients. DKA was less common among patients using CGM or insulin pumps. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved strategies to prevent DKA among patients with T1D-not only under pandemic conditions, but under all conditions-especially among populations most affected by health inequities.

Perceived Burdens and Benefits Associated With Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Type 1 Diabetes Across the Lifespan.

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) help people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improve their glycemic profiles but are underutilized. To better understand why, perceived CGM burdens and benefits in nonusers versus users with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan were assessed. METHODS: Burdens (BurCGM) and benefits of CGM (BenCGM) questionnaires were completed during T1D outpatient visits (n = 1334) from February 2019 to February 2020. Mean scores were calculated (scale one to five; higher scores reflect greater perceived burdens/benefits). Data were collected from medical records including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) within 3 months of the visit. RESULTS: Individuals of all ages using CGM described more benefits and less burdens (mean scores 4.48 and 1.69, respectively) when compared with those who were not using CGM (mean score 4.19 and 2.35, respectively) (P < .001). There were no differences in burdens or benefits by sex. Non-CGM users aged ≥50 years had higher mean BurCGM scores than those aged <50 years (P = .004); the cost was the greatest barrier in those aged 27+ years. Other burdens were readings not trusted, painful to wear, and takes too much time to use. For those aged 65+, nonusers versus users, 18.5% versus 3.1% agreed with "it was too hard to understand CGM information," and 21.4% versus 7.7% agreed that CGM causes too much worry. Mean HbA1C was lower in CGM users (8.1%) versus non-CGM users (mean A1c 9.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CGM was perceived as having more burdens and less benefits in nonusers, with differences in concerns varying across the lifespan. Lower costs and age-appropriate education are needed to address these barriers.