Search

The risk of ischemic events carried by different clusters of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in the setting of secondary prevention is not definite and the association between DM and bleeding complications is controversial. We explored these issues in the START-ANTIPLATELET, a multicenter Italian registry including acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Study outcome was 1-year incidence of the net composite endpoint including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or any bleeding and its individual components across different DM strata (no DM, DM with or without insulin). Out of 951 patients, 20.0% had diabetes not on insulin and 2.5% had diabetes on insulin. The rate of the net composite endpoint was highest in patients receiving insulin (39.4 per 100 person-years vs 11.7 in diabetic patients not on insulin vs 14.0 in those without DM; p = 0.007). In DM, the higher risk of MACE was regardless of insulin use (p = 0.36). Conversely, the increase in bleeding complications was limited to patients on insulin (Hazard Ratio 2.31, 95% CI 0.93-5.71 vs no DM; p = 0.0105 across DM strata). On top of aspirin, the rates of the net composite endpoint were similar with ticagrelor/prasugrel or clopidogrel irrespective of DM status (p for interaction 0.63). In conclusion, in ACS patients, type 2 DM enhances the risk of MACE regardless of the DM cluster, whereas the propensity to bleeding related to DM seems confined to insulin-treated patients., (© 2021. Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).)

Aim: To assess the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Materials and Methods: In this observational, multicentre, retrospective study conducted in the Lazio region, Italy, we compared the differences in the HbA1c levels of 141 subjects with T2D exposed to lockdown with 123 matched controls with T2D who attended the study centres 1 year before. Basal data were collected from 9 December to 9 March and follow-up data from 3 June to 10 July in 2020 for the lockdown group, and during the same timeframes in 2019 for the control groups. Changes in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c) and body mass index (ΔBMI) during lockdown were compared among patients with different psychological well-being, as evaluated by tertiles of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBS)., Results: No difference in ΔHbA1c was found between the lockdown and control groups (lockdown group -0.1% [-0.5%-0.3%] vs. control group -0.1% [-0.4%-0.2%]; p = .482). Also, no difference was found in ΔBMI (p = .316) or ΔGlucose (p = .538). In the lockdown group, subjects with worse PGWBS showed a worsening of HbA1c (p = .041 for the trend among PGWBS tertiles) and BMI (p = .022)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 lockdown did not significantly impact glycaemic control in people with T2D. People with poor psychological well-being may experience a worsening a glycaemic control because of restrictions resulting from lockdown. These findings may aid healthcare providers in diabetes management once the second wave of COVID-19 has ended., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In a nationwide study of 3818 charts from patients with fatal COVID-19, we found that geographical differences in Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors use did not correlate with diabetes prevalence among COVID-19 deaths, thus not supporting the hypothesis of a clinically relevant involvement of DPP4 inhibition in COVID-19 development and progression., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests RS, MD and CP have no conflict of interest to declare for the preparation of this manuscript. EM has received speaker fees from Astra-Zeneca and Lilly and research grants from scientific societies with the unrestricted support from AstraZeneca. PP has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD and Lilly. RB has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD and Lilly, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate whether subjects with diabetes hospitalized for Coronavirus disease-19 (Covid-19) represent a subgroup of patients with high-risk clinical features compared to patients with diabetes without Covid-19., Methods: In this case-control study 79 patients with type 2 diabetes out of 354 adults hospitalized for Covid-19 and 158 controls with type 2 diabetes but without Covid-19, matched for age and gender, were enrolled. Medical history and concomitant therapies were retrieved from medical charts and compared between cases and controls, controlling for confounders., Results: Fully-adjusted multivariate logistic regression model showed that previous CVD history did not differ between patients with and without Covid-19 (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-3.32, p = 0.45). A higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 3.72, 95%CI: 1.42-9.72, p = 0.007) and of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR 3.08, 95%CI: 1.18-8.06, p = 0.022) and a lower prevalence of ever smokers (OR 0.30, 95%CI: 0.13-0.67, p = 0.003), of users of lipid lowering agents (OR 0.26, 95%CI: 0.12-0.54, p < 0.001), and of anti-hypertensive drugs (OR 0.39, 95%CI: 0.16-0.93, p = 0.033) were found among cases., Conclusions: CVD prevalence does not differ between people with diabetes with and without Covid-19 requiring hospitalization. An increased prevalence of COPD and of CKD in Covid-19 patients with type 2 diabetes is suggested. These findings aid to clarify the relationship between underlying conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection in the high-risk group of patients with diabetes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.M. reports research support from scientific societies with unrestricted grants from Lilly and from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Abbott, PikDare.; C.M. has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca; G.L. has received honoraria from NovoNordisk, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi; P.P. has received research support from Eli Lilly and Company and serves on the speaker bureau for Sanofi‐Aventis; R.B. has received honoraria or consulting fees from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)