4.6 Article

The Impact of a Lockdown for the COVID-19 Pandemic on Seasonal HbA1c Variation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life13030763

Keywords

COVID-19; glycated hemoglobin; lockdown; type 2 diabetes mellitus; season; variation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective cohort study examined the changes of HbA1c levels in adults with type 2 diabetes before and after the COVID-19 lockdown in Taiwan. The results showed that HbA1c levels were significantly lower after the lockdown in 2019, 2020, and 2021. However, the absolute seasonal reduction in HbA1c during the COVID-19 pandemic was slightly less compared to the year without COVID-19.
Glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes may be disrupted due to restricted medical service access and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown period. This retrospective cohort study examined changes of HbA1c levels in adults with type 2 diabetes 12 weeks before and after May 19 in 2021, the date that COVID-19 lockdown began in Taiwan. The mean levels of HbA1c-after were significantly lower than HbA1c-before in 2019 (7.27 +/- 1.27% vs 7.43 +/- 1.38%, p < 0.001), 2020 (7.27 +/- 1.28% vs 7.37 +/- 1.34%, p < 0.001), and 2021 (7.03 +/- 1.22% vs 7.17 +/- 1.29%, p < 0.001). Considering the seasonal variation of HbA1c, DHbA1c values (HbA1c-after minus HbA1c-before) in 2020 (with sporadic COVID-19 cases and no lockdown) were not significantly different from 2021 (regression coefficient [95% CI] = 0.01% [ 0.02%, 0.03%]), while seasonal HbA1c variation in 2019 (no COVID-19) was significantly more obvious than in 2021 (0.05% [-0.07, -0.02%]). In conclusion, HbA1c level did not deteriorate after a lockdown measure during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan. However, the absolute seasonal reduction in HbA1c was slightly less during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year without COVID-19.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available