AimsThe COVID-19 pandemic, and the focus on mitigating its effects, has disrupted diabetes healthcare services worldwide. We aimed to quantify the effect of the pandemic on diabetes diagnosis/management, using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as surrogate, across six UK centres.MethodsUsing routinely collected laboratory data, we estimated the number of missed HbA1c tests for ‘diagnostic’/‘screening’/‘management’ purposes during the COVID-19 impact period (CIP; 23 March 2020 to 30 September 2020). We examined potential impact in terms of: (1) diabetes control in people with diabetes and (2) detection of new diabetes and prediabetes cases.ResultsIn April 2020, HbA1c test numbers fell by ~80%. Overall, across six centres, 369 871 tests were missed during the 6.28 months of the CIP, equivalent to >6.6 million tests nationwide. We identified 79 131 missed ‘monitoring’ tests in people with diabetes. In those 28 564 people with suboptimal control, this delayed monitoring was associated with a 2–3 mmol/mol HbA1c increase. Overall, 149 455 ‘screening’ and 141 285 ‘diagnostic’ tests were also missed. Across the UK, our findings equate to 1.41 million missed/delayed diabetes monitoring tests (including 0.51 million in people with suboptimal control), 2.67 million screening tests in high-risk groups (0.48 million within the prediabetes range) and 2.52 million tests for diagnosis (0.21 million in the pre-diabetes range; ~70 000 in the diabetes range).ConclusionsOur findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in people with, or being investigated for, diabetes. For people with diabetes, missed tests will result in further deterioration in diabetes control, especially in those whose HbA1c levels are already high.

BackgroundDysphagia occurs in up to 50% of patients following a stroke [1][2][3][4] and increases the risk of pneumonia almost ten-fold [5]. Strokerelated pneumonia is associated with longer length of hospital stay, worse levels of disability and increased mortality [6][7][8][9]. In most dysphagic patients, adaptation of the consistency of diet and fluids is sufficient to ensure that the swallow is safe. However, in a small proportion insertion of a Nasogastric Tube (NGT) is required to ensure safe and adequate nutrition. Despite this, more than twothirds of NGT-fed stroke patients still develop pneumonia [10] Gastric dysmotility is a well-documented phenomenon that occurs in critically ill patients, including acute stroke patients, whereby incomplete gastric emptying results in stasis, heightening the risk of reflux and aspiration of gastric contents [10-13]. NGT bolus feeding was first described by Morrison et al. [14] in 1895 for children with Diphtheria, who received 6-ounce bolus feeds 3 times a day via NGT. However, it wasn't until 1910s when Morgan et al.[15] and Jones et al. [16] began administering their enteral feeds "drop by drop" rather than as a bolus. Contemporaneously, the

BackgroundWomen with gestational diabetes (GDM) have an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM). NICE Guidance recommends women who develop GDM are screened 6 weeks post-partum and annually thereafter.AimTo evaluate conformity to guidance of screening in women with GDM by 6-week post-partum fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and annual FPG and determine time between delivery and development of T2DM.MethodRecords at a tertiary referral centre were used to identify women (n = 54) diagnosed with GDM by antenatal oral glucose tolerance test between July 1999 and January 2007. Data from laboratory records were used to collect investigations of glycaemic status during the follow-up period (median follow-up 12.4 years, range 9.5–17.1 years).ResultsOf 252 women, 102 (40.2%) did not have a FPG at 6 weeks (+/−2 weeks). Of these, median time to first test was 1.2 years (range 0.04–10.8 years), with only 43.1% followed-up within 1 year. In those who had a 6-week FPG, 17 (11.3%) women had no further tests. A total of 84 (33% of those with gestational diabetes in the index pregnancy) women were diagnosed with T2DM; median time from delivery to diagnosis was 5.2 years (range 0.35–15.95). We found the only significant factor for a follow-up test at 1-year post-partum was the use of insulin.ConclusionOur data suggest an alternative approach is needed for monitoring women with a history of GDM. This needs to be appropriate for a generally healthy group in which traditional screening mechanisms may not be adequate or sufficient.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) represent two of the highest risk factors for development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in young women. As these increasingly common conditions generally affect younger women, early detection of dysglycemia is key if preventative measures are to be effective. While international guidance recommends screening for type 2 diabetes, current screening strategies suffer from significant challenges. First, guidance lacks consensus in defining which tests to use and frequency of monitoring, thereby sending mixed messages to healthcare professionals. Second, conformity to guidance is poor, with only a minority of women having tests at the recommended frequency (where specified). Approaches to improve conformity have focused on healthcare related factors (largely technology driven reminder systems), but patient factors such as convenience and clear messaging around risk have been neglected. Third, and most critically, current screening strategies are too generic and rely on tests that become abnormal far too late in the trajectory towards dysglycemia to offer opportunities for effective preventative measures. Risk factors show wide interindividual variation, and insulin sensitivity and β cell function are often abnormal during pre-diabetes stage, well before frank diabetes. New, consistent, targeted screening strategies are required that incorporate early, prevention focused testing and personalised risk stratification.