Clinical considerations for patients with diabetes in times of COVID-19 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hussain A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7270738 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul - Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical considerations for patients with diabetes in times of COVID-19 pandemic.
Hussain Akhtar A do Vale Moreira Nayla Cristina NC
Diabetes & metabolic syndrome 20200316 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:The current pandemic of the COVID-19 infection, coupled with the increased global burden of diabetes, has imposed significant challenges to the healthcare providers in providing effective and sustained care to patients with diabetes during the ongoing pandemic. It is, therefore, important for healthcare providers to understand and follow the recommended changes in the delivery of care, lifestyle modifications, and pharmacotherapy to ensure optimal care to the patients during and post-pandemic era. This commentary aims to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care and the important considerations for pharmacists during this pandemic.
| S-EPMC7261353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a "cytokine storm" and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded.
| S-EPMC7300800 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7146668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care systems unexpectedly. However, data focusing on practical considerations experienced by health care professionals (HCPs) providing care to allergic patients is scarce.MethodsUnder the framework of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a panel of experts in the field of immunotherapy developed a 42-question online survey, to evaluate real-life consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in allergy practice.ResultsThe respondents in the survey were 618. About 80% of HCPs indicated being significantly affected in their allergy practice. A face-to-face visit reduction was reported by 93% of HCPs and about a quarter completely interrupted diagnostic challenges. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma (59%) and anaphylaxis (47%) were prioritized for in-person care. About 81% maintained an unaltered prescription of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatics. About 90% did not modify intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) in patients with allergic rhinitis. Nearly half of respondents kept biological prescriptions unmodified for asthma. About 50% of respondents kept their allergen immunotherapy (AIT) prescription patterns unchanged for respiratory allergies; 60% for insect venom allergies. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies was initiated by 27%. About 20% kept carrying out up-dosing without modifications and 14% changed to more prolonged intervals. Telemedicine practice was increased.ConclusionsHCPs providing care to allergic patients were affected during the pandemic in diagnostic, management, and therapeutic approaches, including AIT for respiratory, insect-venom, and food allergies. Most HCPs maintained controller treatments for both asthma, and allergic rhinitis consistent with international recommendations, as well as biological agents in asthma. Remote tools are valuable in delivering allergy care.
| S-EPMC8762981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDue to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) disease outbreak, social distancing measures were imposed to control the spread of the pandemic. However, isolation may affect negatively the psychological well-being and impair sleep quality. Our aim was to evaluate the sleep quality of respiratory patients during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.MethodsAll patients who underwent a telemedicine appointment from March 30 to April 30 of 2020 were asked to participate in the survey. Sleep difficulties were measured using Jenkins Sleep Scale.ResultsThe study population consisted of 365 patients (mean age 63.9 years, 55.6% male, 50.1% with sleep-disordered breathing [SDB]). During the lockdown, 78.9% of participants were confined at home without working. Most patients (69.6%) reported at least one sleep difficulty and frequent awakenings was the most prevalent problem. Reporting at least one sleep difficulty was associated with home confinement without working, female gender and diagnosed or suspected SDB, after adjustment for cohabitation status and use of anxiolytics. Home confinement without working was associated with difficulties falling asleep and waking up too early in the morning. Older age was a protective factor for difficulties falling asleep, waking up too early and non-restorative sleep. Notably, SDB patients with good compliance to positive airway pressure therapy were less likely to report sleep difficulties.ConclusionsHome confinement without working, female gender and SDB may predict a higher risk of reporting sleep difficulties. Medical support during major disasters should be strengthened and potentially delivered through telemedicine, as this comprehensive approach could reduce psychological distress and improve sleep quality.
| S-EPMC7366086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveTo investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 deaths in Mexico.MethodsThis study analyzes monthly administrative data on 15 different causes of death in Mexico from 2017 to 2020. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 deaths are conducted using a difference-in-differences methodology and an event study.ResultsThe evidence shows mixed results. There is an increase in six causes of death: diabetes (36.8%), hypertension (25.8%), heart attacks (40.9%), bronchitis- asthma (24.2%), anemia (28.6%) and prostate cancer (21.4%). There is a decrease in two causes of death: traffic accidents (8.8%) and HIV (13.8%). There are null effects for seven causes of death: breast cancer, cerebrovascular disease, malnutrition, alcohol-related liver disease, renal insufficiency, homicides and suicides.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic affected non-COVID-19 deaths caused by diseases that require intensive healthcare services. Conversely, this pandemic reduced social interactions, which contributed to a decrease on deaths such as traffic accidents.
| S-EPMC10273375 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7198181 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1055 | biostudies-other
Project description:There is disagreement among researchers regarding the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic state or stable trait. Aiming to shed light on the state-versus-trait debate, we explored the stability and construct validity of four of the most frequently utilized state or trait resilience scales in a longitudinal assessment. Additionally, we examined the predictive validity of these scales. Our study was conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, which served as collectively experienced adversity. Correlations among the resilience scales and among resilience scales and Big Five personality traits were strong. All except one scale showed high test-retest correlations. Experience of an additional critical life event during the pandemic led to an increase in resilience. Other than in cross-sectional studies, associations between resilience and psychological distress were weak, because personality and baseline psychological distress were controlled for. Nevertheless, next to personality, resilience explained additional variance in distress change. Our results show relatively high stability of resilience overall. Yet, they also confirm dynamic resilience features, suggesting that resilience change occurs with significant adversity, leading to improved adaptation. To gauge the true association between resilience and mental health, baseline levels of these variables as well as personality traits should be considered.
| S-EPMC9353390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of online research using rating scales. While this approach can be useful, two of the major challenges affecting the quality of this type of research include selection bias and the use of non-validated scales. Online research is prone to various forms of selection bias, including self-selection bias, non-response bias or only reaching specific subgroups. The use of rating scales requires contextually validated scales that meet psychometrical properties such as validity, reliability and-for cross-country comparisons-invariance across settings. We discuss options to prevent or tackle these challenges. Researchers, readers, editors and reviewers need to take a critical stance towards research using this type of methodology.
| S-EPMC7907624 | biostudies-literature