4.0 Article

Improved glycemic control amongst people with long-standing diabetes during COVID-19 lockdown: a prospective, observational, nested cohort study

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13410-020-00880-x

关键词

COVID-19; Glycemic control; HbA1c; Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ); Physical activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims COVID-19 is likely to affect the lives of individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, the effect of COVID-19 lockdown on physical activity and glycemic control in such individuals is not known. We studied the physical activity and glycemic control during lockdown in comparison to pre-lockdown parameters in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes. Methods This prospective, observational study includes 2240 people with T2DM regularly attending diabetes clinic prior to lockdown. Glycemic record, HbA1c, and physical activity assessed with Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) as metabolic equivalents (MetS min/week) were obtained during lockdown (minimum duration of 3 months). Results A total of 422 out of 750 participants (nest) responded. The median (IQR) for age was 58 (52 to 64) years, duration of diabetes 11 (6 to 16) years, prevalent foot complications in 59.7%, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in 21.3% of participants. There was a decrease in HbA1c from 7.8% (6.9 to 9.4) prior lockdown to 7.4% (6.6 to8.7) during lockdown [Delta HbA1c - 0.41 +/- 0.27% (p = 0.005)] and postprandial blood glucose 200.0 mg/dl (152.0 to 252.0) to 158.0 (140.0 to 200.0) mg/dl (p < 0.001). The physical activity increased during lockdown from a GPAQ score 140 (0.0 to 1260) MetS to 840 (0.0 to 1680) MetS (p = 0.014). The improvement of glycemic control was observed in either gender and independent of the presence of foot complications or increase in physical activity. Conclusions There is an overall improvement of glycemic control during COVID-19 lockdown independent of increase in physical activity in people with long duration of diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据