Search

BackgroundBrief messages are a promising way to improve adherence to medication for people with type 2 diabetes. However, it is often unclear how messages have been developed and their precise content, making it difficult to ascertain why certain messages are successful and some are not. ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to develop messages that have proven fidelity to specified evidence-derived behavior change techniques (BCTs) and are acceptable to people with type 2 diabetes. MethodsFour studies were conducted: (1) a workshop (n=21) where behavioral change researchers and health care professionals developed messages based on specific BCTs or beliefs or concerns related to taking medication, (2) a focus group study with people with type 2 diabetes (n=23) to assess acceptability of the approach, (3) a survey to ascertain the acceptability of a subset of messages to people with type 2 diabetes (n=61) and, (4) a survey with behavior change researchers to assess the fidelity of a subset of messages to their intended BCT (n=18). ResultsIn study 1, 371 messages based on 38 BCTs and beliefs/concerns were developed. Workshop participants rated BCTs to be relevant to medication adherence (mean 7.12/10 [SD 1.55]) and messages to have good fidelity (mean 7.42/10 [SD 1.19]). In study 2, the approach of providing medication adherence support through text messages was found to be acceptable. In study 3, mean acceptability of all BCTs was found to be above the midpoint (mean 3.49/5 [SD 0.26]). In study 4, mean fidelity for all BCTs was found to be above the midpoint (mean 7.61/10 [SD 1.38]). ConclusionsA library of brief messages acceptable to people with type 2 diabetes and representative of specific evidence-derived BCTs was developed. This approach allowed brief messages to be developed with known content that can be used to test theory.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether pre-existing macrovascular complications (ischemic heart disease, stroke or peripheral artery disease) are associated with health outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted cohort studies of adults with pre-existing diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19 infection in the UK, France, and Spain during the early phase of the pandemic (between March 2020-October 2020). Logistic regression models adjusted for demographic factors and other comorbidities were used to determine associations between previous macrovascular disease and relevant clinical outcomes: mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the hospitalization. Output from individual logistic regression models for each cohort was combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 4,106 (60.4%) individuals. Of these, 1,652 (40.2%) had any prior macrovascular disease of whom 28.5% of patients died. Mortality was higher for people with compared to those without previous macrovascular disease (37.7% vs 22.4%). The combined crude odds ratio (OR) for previous macrovascular disease and mortality for all four cohorts was 2.12 (95% CI 1.83-2.45 with an I2 of 60%, reduced after adjustments for age, sex, type of diabetes, hypertension, microvascular disease, ethnicity, and BMI to adjusted OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.29-1.81]) for the three cohorts. Further analysis revealed that ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease were the main contributors of adverse outcomes. However, proportions of people admitted to ICU (adjOR 0.48 [95% CI 0.31-0.75], I2 60%) and the use of IMV during hospitalization (adjOR 0.52 [95% CI 0.40-0.68], I2 37%) were significantly lower for people with previous macrovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: This large multinational study of people with diabetes mellitus hospitalized for COVID-19 demonstrates that previous macrovascular disease is associated with higher mortality and lower proportions admitted to ICU and treated with IMV during hospitalization suggesting selective admission criteria. Our findings highlight the importance correctly assess the prognosis and intensive monitoring in this high-risk group of patients and emphasize the need to design specific public health programs aimed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in this subgroup.

Aim: To develop and explore the validity of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for adult inpatient diabetes care. Method: 27 in‐depth interviews were conducted to inform the development of the 42‐item PREM which was cognitively tested with 10 people. A refined 38‐item PREM was piloted with 228 respondents completing a paper (n = 198) or online (n = 30) version. The performance of the PREM was evaluated by exploring (i) uptake/number of responses and (ii) survey validity by investigating whether the PREM data were of adequate quality and delivered useful information. Results: The PREM had low drop‐out or missing data rates suggesting it was appropriately constructed. Analysis of item frequencies and variances, and problem score calculations concluded that questions provided sufficient score differentiation. Conclusions: This new PREM allows for experiences of inpatient diabetes care to be measured, understood and reported on to help identify priority areas for improving care quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To investigate characteristics of people hospitalized with coronavirus‐disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or hyperosmolar hyperglycaemic state (HHS), and to identify risk factors for mortality and intensive care admission. Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study with anonymized data from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists nationwide audit of hospital admissions with COVID‐19 and diabetes, from start of pandemic to November 2021. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. DKA and HHS were adjudicated against national criteria. Age‐adjusted odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression. Results: In total, 85 confirmed DKA cases, and 20 HHS, occurred among 4073 people (211 type 1 diabetes, 3748 type 2 diabetes, 114 unknown type) hospitalized with COVID‐19. Mean (SD) age was 60 (18.2) years in DKA and 74 (11.8) years in HHS (p <.001). A higher proportion of patients with HHS than with DKA were of non‐White ethnicity (71.4% vs 39.0% p =.038). Mortality in DKA was 36.8% (n = 57) and 3.8% (n = 26) in type 2 and type 1 diabetes respectively. Among people with type 2 diabetes and DKA, mortality was lower in insulin users compared with non‐users [21.4% vs. 52.2%; age‐adjusted odds ratio 0.13 (95% CI 0.03‐0.60)]. Crude mortality was lower in DKA than HHS (25.9% vs. 65.0%, p =.001) and in statin users versus non‐users (36.4% vs. 100%; p =.035) but these were not statistically significant after age adjustment. Conclusions: Hospitalization with COVID‐19 and adjudicated DKA is four times more common than HHS but both associate with substantial mortality. There is a strong association of previous insulin therapy with survival in type 2 diabetes‐associated DKA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To provide a detailled analysis of the microvascular burden in patients with diabetes hopitalized for COVD‐19. Materials and Methods: We analysed data from the French CORONADO initiative and the UK Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) COVID‐19 audit, two nationwide multicentre studies, and the AMERICADO, a multicentre study conducted in New York area. We assessed the association between risk of all‐cause death during hospital stay and the following microvascular complications in patients with diabetes hospitalized for COVID‐19: diabetic retinopathy and/or diabetic kidney disease and/or history of diabetic foot ulcer. Results: Among 2951 CORONADO, 3387 ABCD COVID‐19 audit and 9327 AMERICADO participants, microvascular diabetic complications status was ascertained for 1314 (44.5%), 1809 (53.4%) and 7367 (79.0%) patients, respectively: 1010, 1059 and 1800, respectively, had ≥1 severe microvascular complication(s) and 304, 750 and 5567, respectively, were free of any complications. The patients with isolated diabetic kidney disease had an increased risk of all‐cause death during hospital stay: odds ratio [OR] 2.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66‐3.83), OR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00‐1.56) and OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.40‐1.95) in the CORONADO, the ABCD COVID‐19 national audit and the AMERICADO studies, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), compared to those without microvascular complications, patients with microvascular complications had an increased risk of all‐cause death during hospital stay in the CORONADO, the ABCD COVID‐19 diabetes national audit and the AMERICADO studies: adjusted OR (adjOR) 2.57 (95% CI 1.69‐3.92), adjOR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00‐1.52) and adjOR 1.33 (95% CI 1.15‐1.53), respectively. In meta‐analysis of the three studies, compared to patients free of complications, those with microvascular complications had an unadjusted OR for all‐cause death during hospital stay of 2.05 (95% CI 1.42‐2.97), which decreased to 1.62 (95% CI 1.19‐2.119) after adjustment for age and sex, and to 1.50 (1.12‐2.02) after hypertension and CVD were further added to the model. Conclusion: Microvascular burden is associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalized for COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between prescription of SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) incidence or mortality in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) hospitalized with COVID-19. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study based on secondary analysis of data from a large nationwide audit from a network of 40 centers in the U.K. with data collection up to December 2020. The study was originally designed to describe risk factors associated with adverse outcomes among people with diabetes who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The primary outcome for this analysis was DKA on or during hospital admission. The secondary outcome was mortality. Crude, age-sex adjusted, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for people prescribed SGLT2i compared with those not prescribed SGLT2i. RESULTS: The original national audit included 3,067 people with T2D who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, of whom 230 (7.5%) were prescribed SGLT2is prior to hospital admission. The mean age of the overall cohort was 72 years, 62.3% were men, and 34.9% were prescribed insulin. Overall, 2.8% of the total population had DKA and 35.6% of people in the study died. The adjusted odds of DKA were not significantly different between those prescribed SGLT2is and those not (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.16–1.97). The adjusted odds of mortality associated with SGLT2is were similar in the total study population (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.78–1.63), in the subgroup prescribed insulin (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.59–1.77), and in the subgroup that developed DKA (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01–8.76). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a low risk of DKA and high mortality rate in people with T2D admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and limited power, but no evidence, of increased risk of DKA or in-hospital mortality associated with prescription of SGLT2is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Evidence suggests that some people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) experience temporary instability of blood glucose (BG) levels after COVID‐19 vaccination. We aimed to assess this objectively. Methods: We examined the interstitial glucose profile of 97 consecutive adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T1DM using the FreeStyle Libre® flash glucose monitor in the periods immediately before and after their first COVID‐19 vaccination. The primary outcome measure was percentage (%) interstitial glucose readings within the target range 3.9–10 mmol/L for 7 days prior to the vaccination and the 7 days after the vaccination. Data are mean ± standard error. Results: There was a significant decrease in the % interstitial glucose on target (3.9–10.0) for the 7 days following vaccination (mean 52.2% ± 2.0%) versus pre‐COVID‐19 vaccination (mean 55.0% ± 2.0%) (p = 0.030). 58% of individuals with T1DM showed a reduction in the 'time in target range' in the week after vaccination. 30% showed a decrease of time within the target range of over 10%, and 10% showed a decrease in time within target range of over 20%. The change in interstitial glucose proportion on target in the week following vaccination was most pronounced for people taking metformin/dapagliflozin + basal bolus insulin (change −7.6%) and for people with HbA1c below the median (change −5.7%). Conclusion: In T1DM, we have shown that initial COVID‐19 vaccination can cause temporary perturbation of interstitial glucose, with this effect more pronounced in people talking oral hypoglycaemic medication plus insulin, and when HbA1c is lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Finger prick blood glucose (BG) monitoring remains a mainstay of management in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who take sulphonylurea (SU) drugs or insulin. We recently examined patient experience of BG monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). There has not been any recent comprehensive assessment of the performance of BG monitoring strips or the patient experience of BG strips in people with T2DM in the UK. Methods: An online self‐reported questionnaire containing 44 questions, prepared following consultation with clinicians and patients, was circulated to people with T2DM. 186 responders provided completed responses (25.5% return rate). Fixed responses were coded numerically (eg not confident = 0 fairly confident = 1). Results: Of responders, 84% were treated with insulin in addition to other agents. 75% reported having had an HbA1c check in the previous 6 months. For those with reported HbA1c ≥ 65 mmol/mol, a majority of people (70%) were concerned or really concerned about the shorter term consequences of running a high HbA1c This contrasted with those who did not know their recent HbA1c, of whom only 33% were concerned/really concerned and those with HbA1c <65 mmol/mol of whom 35% were concerned. Regarding BG monitoring/insulin adjustment, only 25% of responders reported having sufficient information with 13% believing that the accuracy and precision of their BG metre was being independently checked. Only 9% recalled discussing BG metre accuracy when their latest metre was provided and only 7% were aware of the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) standards for BG metres. 77% did not recall discussing BG metre performance with a healthcare professional. Conclusion: The group surveyed comprised engaged people with T2DM but even within this group there was significant variation in (a) awareness of shorter term risks, (b) confidence in their ability to implement appropriate insulin dosage (c) awareness of the limitations of BG monitoring technology. There is clearly an area where changes in education/support would benefit many. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]