Introduction:In late February 2020, due to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the Italian Government closed down all educational and sport activities. In March, it introduced further measures to stop the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), placing the country in a state of almost complete lockdown. We report the impact of these restrictions on glucose control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Data were collected on 33 individuals with T1D who were monitoring their glucose levels using a flash glucose monitoring device and remotely connected to the diabetes clinic on a cloud platform. We retrieved information on average glucose, standard deviation and percentage time in hypoglycaemia (\ 70 mg/ dl), glucose range (70-180 mg/dl) and hyperglycaemia ([ 180 mg/dl). We compared glycaemic measures collected during lockdown to those collected before the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and to the periods immediately before lockdown. Results: In 20 patients who had stopped working and were at home as a result of the lockdown, overall glycaemic control improved during the first 7 days of the lockdown as compared to the weeks before the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Average glucose declined from 177 ± 45 mg/dl (week before lockdown) to 160 ± 40 mg/dl (lockdown; p = 0.005) and the standard deviation improved significantly. Time in range increased from 54.4 to 65.2% (p = 0.010), and time in hyperglycaemia decreased from 42.3 to 31.6% (p = 0.016). The number of scans per day remained unchanged. In 13 patients who continued working, none of the measures of glycaemic control changed during lockdown. Conclusion: Despite the limited possibility to exercise and the incumbent psychologic stress, glycaemic control improved in patients with T1D who stopped working during the lockdown, suggesting that slowing down routine daily activities can have beneficial effects on T1D management, at least in the short term.

We investigated whether pre-existing diabetes, newly-diagnosed diabetes, and admission hyperglycemia were associated with COVID-19 severity independently from confounders. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data on patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between February and April 2020 in an outbreak hospital in NorthEast Italy. Pre-existing diabetes was defined by self-reported history, electronic medical records, or ongoing medications. Newly-diagnosed diabetes was defined by HbA1c and fasting glucose. The primary outcome was a composite of ICU admission or death. Results: 413 subjects were included, 107 of whom (25.6%) had diabetes, including 21 newlydiagnosed. Patients with diabetes were older and had greater comorbidity burden. The primary outcome occurred in 37.4% of patients with diabetes compared to 20.3% in those without (RR 1.85; 95%C.I. 1.33-2.57; p < 0.001). The association was stronger for newlydiagnosed compared to pre-existing diabetes (RR 3.06 vs 1.55; p = 0.004). Higher glucose level at admission was associated with COVID-19 severity, with a stronger association among patients without as compared to those with pre-existing diabetes (interaction p < 0.001). Admission glucose was correlated with most clinical severity indexes and its association with adverse outcome was mostly mediated by a worse respiratory function. Conclusion: Newly-diagnosed diabetes and admission hyperglycemia are powerful predictors of COVID-19 severity due to rapid respiratory deterioration.

No abstract

AimsTo assess the accuracy and reliability of the two most widely used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.MethodsWe studied the Dexcom®G4 Platinum (DG4P; Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) and Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite system (ENL; Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) CGM systems, in 24 patients with type 1 diabetes. The CGM systems were tested during 6-day home use and a nested 6-h clinical research centre (CRC) visit. During the CRC visit, frequent venous blood glucose samples were used as reference while patients received a meal with an increased insulin bolus to induce an aggravated postprandial glucose nadir. At home, patients performed at least six reference capillary blood measurements per day. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed using all data points ≥15 min apart.ResultsThe overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) value [standard deviation (s.d.)] measured at the CRC was 13.6 (11.0)% for the DG4P and 16.6 (13.5)% for the ENL [p < 0.0002, confidence interval of difference (CI Δ) 1.7–4.3%, n = 530]. The overall MARD assessed at home was 12.2 (12.0)% for the DG4P and 19.9 (20.5)% for the ENL (p < 0.0001, CI Δ = 5.8–8.7%, n = 839). During the CRC visit, the MARD in the hypoglycaemic range [≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], was 17.6 (12.2)% for the DG4P and 24.6 (18.8)% for the ENL (p = 0.005, CI Δ 3.1–10.7%, n = 117). Both sensors showed higher MARD values during hypoglycaemia than during euglycaemia [3.9–10 mmol/l (70–180 mg/dl)]: for the DG4P 17.6 versus 13.0% and for the ENL 24.6 versus 14.2%.ConclusionsDuring circumstances of intended use, including both a CRC and home phase, the ENL was noticeably less accurate than the DG4P sensor. Both sensors showed lower accuracy in the hypoglycaemic range. The DG4P was less affected by this negative effect of hypoglycaemia on sensor accuracy than was the ENL.

OBJECTIVEWe estimate the effect size of hypoglycemia risk reduction on closed-loop control (CLC) versus open-loop (OL) sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy in supervised outpatient setting.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSTwenty patients with type 1 diabetes initiated the study at the Universities of Virginia, Padova, and Montpellier and Sansum Diabetes Research Institute; 18 completed the entire protocol. Each patient participated in two 40-h outpatient sessions, CLC versus OL, in randomized order. Sensor (Dexcom G4) and insulin pump (Tandem t:slim) were connected to Diabetes Assistant (DiAs)—a smartphone artificial pancreas platform. The patient operated the system through the DiAs user interface during both CLC and OL; study personnel supervised on site and monitored DiAs remotely. There were no dietary restrictions; 45-min walks in town and restaurant dinners were included in both CLC and OL; alcohol was permitted.RESULTSThe primary outcome—reduction in risk for hypoglycemia as measured by the low blood glucose (BG) index (LGBI)—resulted in an effect size of 0.64, P = 0.003, with a twofold reduction of hypoglycemia requiring carbohydrate treatment: 1.2 vs. 2.4 episodes/session on CLC versus OL (P = 0.02). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in percentage of time in the target range of 3.9–10 mmol/L (66.1 vs. 70.7%) and increase in mean BG (8.9 vs. 8.4 mmol/L; P = 0.04) on CLC versus OL.CONCLUSIONSCLC running on a smartphone (DiAs) in outpatient conditions reduced hypoglycemia and hypoglycemia treatments when compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy. This was accompanied by marginal increase in average glycemia resulting from a possible overemphasis on hypoglycemia safety.