Search

Little is known about metabolic and nutrition characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and persistent critical illness. We aimed to compare those characteristics in patients with PCI and COVID-19 and patients without COVID-19 infection (non-CO)-primarily, their energy balance. This is a prospective observational study including two consecutive cohorts, defined as needing intubation for >10 days. We collected demographic data, severity scores, nutrition variables, length of stay, and mortality. Altogether, 104 patients (52 per group) were included (59 ± 14 years old [mean ± SD], 75% men) between July 2019 and May 2020. SAPSII, Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS) score, proportion of obese patients, duration of intubation (18.2 ± 11.7 days), and mortality rates were similar. Patients with COVID-19 (vs non-CO) had lower SOFA scores (P = 0.013) and more frequently needed prone position (P < 0.0001) and neuromuscular blockade (P < 0.0001): lengths of ICU (P = 0.03) and hospital stays were shorter (P < 0.0001). Prescribed energy targets were below those of the ICU protocol. The energy balance of patients with COVID-19 was significantly more negative after day 10. Enteral nutrition (EN) started earlier (P < 0.0001). During the first 10 days, COVID-19 patients received more lipid (propofol sedation) and less protein. Higher admission C-reactive protein (P = 0.002) decreased faster (P < 0.001). Whereas intestinal function was characterized by constipation in both groups during the first 10 days, diarrhea was less common in patients with COVID-19 thereafter. Compared with non-CO patients, COVID-19 patients were not more obese, had lower SOFA scores, and were fed more rapidly with EN, because of a more normal gastrointestinal function possibly due to fewer non-respiratory organ failures: their energy balances were more negative after the first 10 days. Propofol sedation reduced protein delivery.

The lowest dosage of empagliflozin (10 mg) showed similar benefits on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, body weight, blood pressure, and total and cardiovascular mortality in comparison with the highest available dose (25 mg) in the EMPAREG trial. These findings have not been clearly demonstrated for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin. The objective was to compare the effect of different doses of SGLT2 inhibitors commercially available in Brazil on HbA1c and body weight of patients with type 2 diabetes. MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched from inception until 11th October 2021 for randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes patients, lasting at least 12 weeks. HbA1c and body weight variations were described using standard mean difference. We performed direct and indirect meta-analysis, as well as a meta-regression with medication doses as covariates. Eighteen studies were included, comprising 16,095 patients. In the direct meta-analysis, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced HbA1c by 0.62% (95% CI −0.66 to −0.59) and body weight by 0.60 kg (95% CI −0.64 to −0.55). In the indirect meta-analysis, canagliflozin 300 mg ranked the highest regarding reductions in HbA1c and body weight. The remaining medications and dosages were clinically similar, despite some statistically significant differences among them. Canagliflozin 300 mg seems to be more potent in reducing HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. The remaining SGLT2 inhibitors at different doses lead to similar effects for both outcomes. Whether these glycemic and weight effects are reflected in lower mortality and cardiovascular events is still uncertain and may be a topic for further studies.