Pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes mellitus among hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Time to reposition sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes management in Indian context: A pragmatic practical approach

Sulfonylureas (SU) continue to be a vital therapeutic category of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Physicians consider modern SU (gliclazide and glimepiride) as "safe and smart" choices for T2DM management. The presence of multiple international guidelines and scarcity of a national guideline may contribute to the challenges faced by few physicians in choosing the right therapeutic strategy. The role of SU in diabetes management is explicit, and the present consensus aims to emphasize the benefits and reposition SU in India. This pragmatic, practical approach aims to define expert recommendations for the physicians to improve caregivers' knowledge of the management of T2DM, leading to superior patient outcomes.

[COVID-19 and Diabetes Mellitus: The Impact of Two Pandemics]

N/a.

Potential Therapeutic Benefits of Metformin Alone and in Combination with Sitagliptin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Patients with COVID-19

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a potential risk factor for the development of COVID-19 and is associated with higher severity and mortality rates. T2DM patients are commonly treated with metformin monotherapy or metformin plus sitagliptin. In the present case-control, single-center cohort study, a total number of 112 T2DM patients suffering from COVID-19 and aged 44−62 years old were compared with 78 T2DM patients without COVID-19 and aged 42−56 years old. Both the patient group and the control group were allocated into four groups. Group A: T2DM patients with COVID-19 on metformin treatments plus standard therapy (n = 60); group B: T2DM patients with COVID-19 on metformin plus sitagliptin plus standard therapy (n = 52); group C: T2DM patients without COVID-19 on metformin treatments (n = 40); and group D: T2DM patients without COVID-19 on metformin plus sitagliptin (n = 38). The investigation duration was 2−3 weeks. Anthropometric measurements, serological and biochemical investigations, pulmonary radiological findings, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Only 101 T2DM patients with COVID-19 continued the study, 71 (70.29%) with mild-moderate COVID-19 and 30 (29.7%) with severe COVID-19 were compared with 78 T2DM patients as a control. Inflammatory biomarkers (C reactive protein, ferritin, and procalcitonin), a lung injury biomarker (lactate dehydrogenase), and a coagulopathy biomarker (D-dimer) were elevated in severe COVID-19 patients compared with mild-moderate COVID-19 (p < 0.05) and T2DM patients (p < 0.05). However, metformin plus sitagliptin was more effective than metformin monotherapy in T2DM patients with COVID-19, as evidenced by the mitigation of oxidative stress, CT scan score, and clinical outcomes. The present study confirmed the protective effects of this combination against the development of COVID-19 severity, as most T2DM COVID-19 patients develop mild-moderate forms. Herein, the combination of metformin and sitagliptin may lead to more beneficial effects than metformin monotherapy.

Hospital management of hyperglycemia in the context of COVID-19: evidence-based clinical considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented crisis, and early on, it has been shown that diabetes is an important risk factor for complications and mortality in infected patients, as demonstrated by several studies. Moreover, hyperglycemia, regardless of whether patients have diabetes, is associated with poorer outcomes, which suggests that adequate monitoring and treatment of elevated glycemia in the hospital setting can improve patient outcomes. In patients with COVID-19, glycemic control may be impaired as a consequence of the infection itself (aggravating pre-existing diabetes and potentially precipitating new-onset diabetes), inflammation, or corticosteroid use-a well-established therapy to reduce COVID-19 complications, especially in the intensive care unit. This article reviews the link between diabetes and hyperglycemia, and COVID-19, with a brief review of potential mechanisms, along with emerging evidence on the effect of glycemic control on COVID-19 outcomes, especially in hospital settings.

Executive Summary from Expert consensus on effectiveness and safety of iDPP-4 in the treatment of patients with diabetes and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

This consensus aims to clarify the role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (iDPP-4) in managing patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed bibliographic search was carried out (December 2019-February 2021). Oxford methodology was used for the evaluation of evidence and possible recommendations were established by consensus.

RESULTS

Diabetes appears to be an independent factor in COVID-19 disease (evidence 2b). No increased risk of contagion with iDPP-4 is demonstrated (evidence 2b), and its use has been shown to be safe (evidence 2b). The use of this drug may present a specific benefit in reducing mortality, particularly in in-hospital use (evidence 2a), reducing admission to intensive care units (evidence 2b) and the need for mechanical ventilation (evidence 2b).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of iDPP-4 appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19, and quality studies are needed to clarify their possible advantages further.

[Dysglycemia in COVID-19 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Peculiarities of the Glycemic Profile in Hospitalized Patients and the Role of Steroid-Induced Disorders]

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on the features of dysglycemia in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) confirmed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

AIM

to study the glycemic profile in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes mellitus by continuous glucose monitoring and the role of steroid therapy in dysglycemiadevelopment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined 21 patients with COVID-19 and DM 2 and 21 patients with DM 2 without COVID-19 (control group) using a professional 4-7-day CGM. We also compared two subgroups of patients with COVID-19 and DM 2: 1) patients received systemic glucocorticosteroids (GCS) during CGM and 2) patients in whomCGMwas performed after discontinuation of GCS.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, patients with COVID-19 and DM2 had lesser values of glycemic «time in range» (32.7 ± 20.40 vs 48.0 ± 15.60%, p = 0.026) andhigher parameters of mean glycemia (p &lt;0.05) but similar proportion of patients with episodes of hypoglycemia (33.3% vs 38.1%, p = 0.75). Patients who received dexamethasone during CGM were characterized by higher hyperglycemia and the absence of episodes of hypoglycemia. In patients who hadCGM after dexamethasone discontinuation, hyperglycemia was less pronounced, but 60% of them had episodes of hypoglycemia, often nocturnal, clinically significant and not detected by routine methods.

CONCLUSION

Patients with COVID-19 and DM 2had severe and persistent hyperglycemia but a third of them hadalso episodes of hypoglycemia. During therapy with dexamethasone, they had the most pronounced hyperglycemia without episodes of hypoglycemia. In patients who underwent CGM after discontinuation of dexamethasone, hyperglycemia was less pronounced but 60% of them have episodes of hypoglycemia, often nocturnal, clinically significant and not diagnosed by routine methods. It would be advisable to recommend at least a 5-6-fold study of the blood glucose level (with its obligatory assessment at night) even for stable patients with COVID-19 and DM 2after the end of GCS treatment.

Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has left a significant impact on the world's health, economic and political systems; as of November 20, 2020, more than 57 million people have been infected worldwide, with over 1.3 million deaths. While the global spotlight is currently focused on combating this pandemic through means ranging from finding a treatment among existing therapeutic agents to inventing a vaccine that can aid in halting the further loss of life.

AIM

To collect all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published related to COVID-19 to better identify available evidence, highlight gaps in knowledge, and elucidate further meta-analyses and umbrella reviews that are yet to be performed.

METHODS

We explored studies based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the key-terms, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS virus, coronavirus disease, COVID-19, and SARS coronavirus-2. The included studies were extracted from Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. The publication timeframe of included studies ranged between January 01, 2020, to October 30, 2020. Studies that were published in languages other than English were not considered for this systematic review. The finalized full-text articles are freely accessible in the public domain.

RESULTS

Searching Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases resulted in 1906, 669, and 19 results, respectively, that comprised 2594 studies. 515 duplicates were subsequently removed, leaving 2079 studies. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 860 results were excluded for being a review article, scope review, rapid review, panel review, or guideline that produced a total of 1219 studies. After screening articles were categorized, the included articles were put into main groups of clinical presentation, epidemiology, screening and diagnosis, severity assessment, special populations, and treatment. Subsequently, there was a second subclassification into the following groups: gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, stroke, thrombosis, anosmia and dysgeusia, ocular manifestations, nephrology, cutaneous manifestations, D-dimer, lymphocyte, anticoagulation, antivirals, convalescent plasma, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, technology, diabetes mellitus, obesity, pregnancy, children, mental health_, smoking, cancer, and transplant.

CONCLUSION

Among the included articles, it is clear that further research is needed regarding treatment options and vaccines. With more studies, data will be less heterogeneous, and statistical analysis can be better applied to provide more robust clinical evidence. This study was not designed to give recommendations regarding the management of COVID-19.