scholarly journals Diabetes and COVID-19 Vaccination

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-224
Author(s):  
Hae Dong Choi ◽  
Jun Sung Moon

Diabetes is one of the major comorbidities associated with increased risk of mortality and severe clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients. Thus, timely and appropriate vaccination is the most effective strategy for mitigating the risk of COVID-19 infection in people with diabetes. Recent studies have shown that immune response after vaccination is significant in both diabetes and non-diabetes groups, but slightly lower in patients with diabetes. Inadequate glucose control might impair the immune response. Blood glucose monitoring is required more often than usual for several days after vaccination. If a patient’s blood glucose is not controlled adequately, appropriate management should be provided.

2013 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Frontino ◽  
Franco Meschi ◽  
Riccardo Bonfanti ◽  
Andrea Rigamonti ◽  
Roseila Battaglino ◽  
...  

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing. Improved glucose control is fundamental to reduce both long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and short-term complications, such as diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. Frequent blood glucose monitoring is an essential part of diabetes management. However, almost all available blood glucose monitoring devices are invasive. This determines a reduced patient compliance, which in turn reflects negatively on glucose control. Therefore, there is a need to develop noninvasive glucose monitoring devices that will reduce the need of invasive procedures, thus increasing patient compliance and consequently improving quality of life and health of patients with diabetes.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Frontino ◽  
Franco Meschi ◽  
Riccardo Bonfanti ◽  
Andrea Rigamonti ◽  
Roseila Battaglino ◽  
...  

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing. Improved glucose control is fundamental to reduce both long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and short-term complications, such as diabetic ketoacidosis and severe hypoglycemia. Frequent blood glucose monitoring is an essential part of diabetes management. However, almost all available blood glucose monitoring devices are invasive. This determines a reduced patient compliance, which in turn reflects negatively on glucose control. Therefore, there is a need to develop noninvasive glucose monitoring devices that will reduce the need of invasive procedures, thus increasing patient compliance and consequently improving quality of life and health of patients with diabetes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e002032
Author(s):  
Marcela Martinez ◽  
Jimena Santamarina ◽  
Adrian Pavesi ◽  
Carla Musso ◽  
Guillermo E Umpierrez

Glycated hemoglobin is currently the gold standard for assessment of long-term glycemic control and response to medical treatment in patients with diabetes. Glycated hemoglobin, however, does not address fluctuations in blood glucose. Glycemic variability (GV) refers to fluctuations in blood glucose levels. Recent clinical data indicate that GV is associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia, microvascular and macrovascular complications, and mortality in patients with diabetes, independently of glycated hemoglobin level. The use of continuous glucose monitoring devices has markedly improved the assessment of GV in clinical practice and facilitated the assessment of GV as well as hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia events in patients with diabetes. We review current concepts on the definition and assessment of GV and its association with cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Stedman ◽  
Rustam Rea ◽  
Christopher J. Duff ◽  
Mark Livingston ◽  
Gabriela Moreno ◽  
...  

Background: The National Health Service spends £170 million on blood glucose monitoring (BGM) strips each year and there are pressures to use cheaper less accurate strips. Technology is also being used to increase test frequency with less focus on accuracy. Previous modeling/real-world data analysis highlighted that actual blood glucose variability can be more than twice blood glucose meter reported variability (BGMV). We applied those results to the Parkes error grid to highlight potential clinical impact. Method: BGMV is defined as the percent of deviation from reference that contains 95% of results. Four categories were modeled: laboratory (<5%), high accuracy strips (<10%), ISO 2013 (<15%), and ISO 2003 (<20%) (includes some strips still used). The Parkes error grid model with its associated category of risk including “alter clinical decision” and “affect clinical outcomes” was used, with the profile of frequency of expected results fitted into each BGM accuracy category. Results: Applying to single readings, almost all strip accuracy ranges derived in a controlled setting fell within the category: clinically accurate/no effect on outcomes areas. However modeling the possible blood glucose distribution in more detail, 30.6% of longer term results of the strips with current ISO accuracy would fall into the “alter clinical action” category. For previous ISO strips, this rose to 44.1%, and for the latest higher accuracy strips, this fell to 12.8%. Conclusion: There is a minimum standard of accuracy needed to ensure that clinical outcomes are not put at risk. This study highlights the potential for amplification of imprecision with less accurate BGM strips.


2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber L. Briggs ◽  
Susan Cornell

In 2002, the cost of diabetes in the United States reached $132 billion. There is a well-established relationship between blood glucose control and the risk of diabetes-related complications. Tight blood glucose control, through intensive diabetes therapy, reduces the risk and delays the onset of diabetesrelated microvascular complications. Regular and consistent self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is and should be a part of all diabetes disease state management programs. Pharmacists can truly increase the numbers of patients who use SMBG by being aware and familiar with the monitoring devices available to patients and identifying the physical and psychological issues surrounding SMBG. Results from SMBG and hemoglobin A1C are the basis formost of the medical decisions made for patients with diabetes. This review discusses the best time for patients to test their blood glucose, information regarding blood glucose monitoring devices, alternative site testing, and the newest technology available in glucose monitoring.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 575-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Freckmann ◽  
Stefan Pleus ◽  
Mike Grady ◽  
Steven Setford ◽  
Brian Levy

Currently, patients with diabetes may choose between two major types of system for glucose measurement: blood glucose monitoring (BGM) systems measuring glucose within capillary blood and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems measuring glucose within interstitial fluid. Although BGM and CGM systems offer different functionality, both types of system are intended to help users achieve improved glucose control. Another area in which BGM and CGM systems differ is measurement accuracy. In the literature, BGM system accuracy is assessed mainly according to ISO 15197:2013 accuracy requirements, whereas CGM accuracy has hitherto mainly been assessed by MARD, although often results from additional analyses such as bias analysis or error grid analysis are provided. The intention of this review is to provide a comparison of different approaches used to determine the accuracy of BGM and CGM systems and factors that should be considered when using these different measures of accuracy to make comparisons between the analytical performance (ie, accuracy) of BGM and CGM systems. In addition, real-world implications of accuracy and its relevance are discussed.


Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Kirstine Klarskov ◽  
Birgitte Lindegaard ◽  
Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard ◽  
Peter Lommer Kristensen

Abstract Objectives Patients with diabetes are - compared to people without diabetes - at increased risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19 related pneumonia during hospitalization. We aim to investigate whether telemetric continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in quarantined hospitalized patients with diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or another contagious infection can be successfully implemented and is associated with better glycaemic control than usual blood glucose monitoring (finger prick method) and fewer patient-health care worker contacts. Furthermore, we will assess whether glucose variables are associated with the clinical outcome. The hypothesis is that by using remote CGM to monitor glucose levels of COVID-19 infected patients and patients with other contagious infections with diabetes, we can still provide satisfactory (and maybe even better) in-hospital diabetes management despite patients being quarantined. Furthermore, the number of patient-personnel contacts can be lowered compared to standard monitoring with finger-prick glucose. This could potentially reduce the risk of transmitting contagious diseases from the patient to other people and reduces the use of PPE’s. Improved glucose control may reduce the increased risk of poor clinical outcomes associated with combined diabetes and infection. Trial Design This is a single centre, open label, exploratory, randomised, controlled, 2-arm parallel group (1:1 ratio), controlled trial. Participants The trial population is patients with diabetes (both type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, newly discovered diabetes that is not classified yet, and all other forms of diabetes) admitted to Nordsjællands Hospital that are quarantined due to COVID-19 infection or another infection. Inclusion criteria: 1. Hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection by real-time PCR or another validated method OR hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 diagnosis and quarantined at time of inclusion. 2. A documented clinically relevant history of diabetes or newly discovered during hospitalization as defined by The World Health Organizations diagnostic criteria for diabetes. 3. Written informed consent obtained before any trial related procedures are performed. 4. Male or female aged over 18 years of age. 5. Must be able to communicate with the study personnel. 6. The subject must be willing and able to comply with trial protocol. Exclusion criteria: 1. Known hypersensitivity to the band-aid of the Dexcom G6 sensors Intervention and comparator Participants will be randomized to either real-time CGM with the Dexcom G6, a CGM system that does not need to be calibrated, or finger-prick glucose monitoring. Blinded CGM will be mounted in the finger-prick group. In the open CGM group, the glucose values will be transmitted to a Smartdevice in the nurse office where glucose levels can be monitored remotely. Main Outcomes The primary endpoint is the difference between groups in distribution of glucose values being in time in range (TIR), defined as 3.9 to 10 mmol/l. In addition, the primary endpoint is reported as the percentage of days of the whole admission, the patient reaches TIR. Secondary endpoints are the estimated number of saved patient-personnel contacts related to blood glucose measurements, incl. time healthcare providers spent on diabetes related tasks and PPE related tasks, during the patients’ hospitalization. Furthermore, we will assess additional glucose outcomes and associations of glucose variables and patient outcomes (As specified in the protocol). Randomisation The service used for generating the randomization lists is www.random.org. Randomization is stratified by COVID-19 status and an allocation ratio of 1:1 to either CGM or finger-prick groups. Blinding (Masking) The design of the trial is open, however blinded CGM is recorded in the finger-prick group. Numbers to be randomized (sample size) A sample size of N=72 is required for the primary endpoint analysis based on 80% power to detect a 10% difference between groups in TIR and to allow for a 15% dropout. The 72 participants will be randomized 1:1 to open CGM or finger-prick with 36 in each group. Trial status This structured protocol summary is based on the CGM-ISO protocol version 1.3, dated 13.05.2020. Date of first patient enrolled: 25.05.2020. Expected last recruiting is May 2021. Patients enrolled to date: 20 in total. 8 with confirmed COVID-19 infection and 12 with other infections. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04430608. Registered 12.06.2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file from the Trial website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; This Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117863291773507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivien Leung ◽  
Kristal Ragbir-Toolsie

Hyperglycemia has long been recognized to have detrimental effects on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery. The manifestations of uncontrolled diabetes are manifold and can include risk of hyperglycemic crises, postoperative infection, poor wound healing, and increased mortality. There is substantial literature supporting the role of diligent glucose control in the prevention of adverse surgical outcomes, but considerable debate remains as to the optimal glucose targets. Hence, most organizations advocate the avoidance of hypoglycemia while striving for adequate glucose control in the perioperative period. These objectives can be accomplished with careful preoperative evaluation, clear patient instructions the day of surgery, frequent blood glucose monitoring during the perioperative period, and use of effective strategies for insulin initiation and titration. This article highlights the major issues concerning patients with diabetes undergoing surgery and reviews the management recommendations put forth by general consensus guidelines and expert opinion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document