Search

Introduction: Lockdown measures have a profound effect on many aspects of daily life relevant for diabetes self-management. We assessed whether lockdown measures, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, differentially affect perceived stress, body weight, exercise and related this to glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: We performed a short-term observational cohort study at the Leiden University Medical Center. People with type 1 and type 2 diabetes ≥18 years were eligible to participate. Participants filled out online questionnaires, sent in blood for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) analysis and shared data of their flash or continuous glucose sensors. HbA1c during the lockdown was compared with the last known HbA1c before the lockdown., Results: In total, 435 people were included (type 1 diabetes n=280, type 2 diabetes n=155). An increase in perceived stress and anxiety, weight gain and less exercise was observed in both groups. There was improvement in glycemic control in the group with the highest HbA1c tertile (type 1 diabetes: -0.39% (-4.3 mmol/mol) (p<0.0001 and type 2 diabetes: -0.62% (-6.8 mmol/mol) (p=0.0036). Perceived stress was associated with difficulty with glycemic control (p<0.0001)., Conclusions: An increase in perceived stress and anxiety, weight gain and less exercise but no deterioration of glycemic control occurs in both people with relatively well-controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes during short-term lockdown measures. As perceived stress showed to be associated with glycemic control, this provides opportunities for healthcare professionals to put more emphasis on psychological aspects during diabetes care consultations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and their management in type 2 diabetes (T2D) have not been fully identified. Therefore, we aimed to examine differences in cardiometabolic risk factor levels, pharmacological treatment and achievement of risk factor control between women and men with T2D., Research Design and Methods: Cross-sectional data from the Dutch Diabetes Pearl cohort were used (n=6637, 40% women). Linear and Poisson regression analyses were used to examine sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factor levels, treatment, and control., Results: Compared with men, women had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (mean difference 1.79 kg/m 2 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.08)), while no differences were found in hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Women had lower diastolic blood pressure (-1.94 mm Hg (95% CI -2.44 to -1.43)), higher total cholesterol (TC) (0.44 mmol/L (95% CI 0.38 to 0.51)), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) (0.26 mmol/L (95% CI 0.22 to 0.31)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) sex-standardized (0.02 mmol/L (95% CI 0.00 to 0.04)), and lower TC:HDL ratio (-0.29 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.23)) and triglycerides (geometric mean ratio 0.91 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.98)). Women had a 16% higher probability of being treated with antihypertensive medication in the presence of high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and elevated SBP than men (relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98)), whereas no sex differences were found for glucose-lowering medication and lipid-modifying medication. Among those treated, women were less likely to achieve treatment targets of HbA 1c (0.92 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.98)) and LDL-c (0.89 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92)) than men, while no differences for SBP were found., Conclusions: In this Dutch T2D population, women had a slightly different cardiometabolic risk profile compared with men and a substantially higher BMI. Women had a higher probability of being treated with antihypertensive medication in the presence of high CVD risk and elevated SBP than men, and were less likely than men to achieve treatment targets for HbA 1c and LDL levels., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

This study aimed to investigate whether interindividual differences in autonomic inhibitory control predict safety learning and fear extinction in an interoceptive fear conditioning paradigm. Data from a previously reported study (N = 40) were extended (N = 17) and re-analyzed to test whether healthy participants' resting heart rate variability (HRV) - a proxy of cardiac vagal tone - predicts learning performance. The conditioned stimulus (CS) was a slight sensation of breathlessness induced by a flow resistor, the unconditioned stimulus (US) was an aversive short-lasting suffocation experience induced by a complete occlusion of the breathing circuitry. During acquisition, the paired group received 6 paired CS-US presentations; the control group received 6 explicitly unpaired CS-US presentations. In the extinction phase, both groups were exposed to 6 CS-only presentations. Measures included startle blink EMG, skin conductance responses (SCR) and US-expectancy ratings. Resting HRV significantly predicted the startle blink EMG learning curves both during acquisition and extinction. In the unpaired group, higher levels of HRV at rest predicted safety learning to the CS during acquisition. In the paired group, higher levels of HRV were associated with better extinction. Our findings suggest that the strength or integrity of prefrontal inhibitory mechanisms involved in safety- and extinction learning can be indexed by HRV at rest.

Recent research considers distress (in)tolerance as an essential component in the development of various forms of psychopathology. A behavioral task frequently used to assess distress tolerance is the breath holding task. Although breath holding time (BHT) has been associated with behavioral outcomes related to inhibitory control (e.g., smoking cessation), the relationship among breath holding and direct measures of executive control has not yet been thoroughly examined. The present study aims to assess (a) the BHT-task's test-retest reliability in a 1-year follow-up and (b) the relationship between a series of executive function tasks and breath holding duration. One hundred and thirteen students completed an initial BHT assessment, 58 of which also completed a series of executive function tasks [the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Parametric Go/No-Go task and the N-back memory updating task]. A subsample of these students (N = 34) repeated the breath holding task in a second session 1 year later. Test-retest reliability of the BHT-task over a 1-year period was high (r = 0.67, p < 0.001), but none of the executive function tasks was significantly associated with BHT. The rather moderate levels of unpleasantness induced by breath holding in our sample may suggest that other processes (physiological, motivational) besides distress tolerance influence BHT. Overall, the current findings do not support the assumption of active inhibitory control in the BHT-task in a healthy sample. Our findings suggest that individual differences (e.g., in interoceptive or anxiety sensitivity) should be taken into account when examining the validity of BHT as a measure of distress tolerance.