Increased stress, weight gain and less exercise in relation to glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Lockdown measures have a profound effect on many aspects of daily life relevant for diabetes self-management. We assessed whether lockdown measures, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, differentially affect perceived stress, body weight, exercise and related this to glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a short-term observational cohort study at the Leiden University Medical Center. People with type 1 and type 2 diabetes ≥18 years were eligible to participate. Participants filled out online questionnaires, sent in blood for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) analysis and shared data of their flash or continuous glucose sensors. HbA1c during the lockdown was compared with the last known HbA1c before the lockdown.

RESULTS

In total, 435 people were included (type 1 diabetes n=280, type 2 diabetes n=155). An increase in perceived stress and anxiety, weight gain and less exercise was observed in both groups. There was improvement in glycemic control in the group with the highest HbA1c tertile (type 1 diabetes: -0.39% (-4.3 mmol/mol) (p<0.0001 and type 2 diabetes: -0.62% (-6.8 mmol/mol) (p=0.0036). Perceived stress was associated with difficulty with glycemic control (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in perceived stress and anxiety, weight gain and less exercise but no deterioration of glycemic control occurs in both people with relatively well-controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes during short-term lockdown measures. As perceived stress showed to be associated with glycemic control, this provides opportunities for healthcare professionals to put more emphasis on psychological aspects during diabetes care consultations.

Sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors, pharmacological treatment and risk factor control in type 2 diabetes: findings from the Dutch Diabetes Pearl cohort

INTRODUCTION

Sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and their management in type 2 diabetes (T2D) have not been fully identified. Therefore, we aimed to examine differences in cardiometabolic risk factor levels, pharmacological treatment and achievement of risk factor control between women and men with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Cross-sectional data from the Dutch Diabetes Pearl cohort were used (n=6637, 40% women). Linear and Poisson regression analyses were used to examine sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factor levels, treatment, and control.

RESULTS

Compared with men, women had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) (mean difference 1.79 kg/m² (95% CI 1.49 to 2.08)), while no differences were found in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Women had lower diastolic blood pressure (-1.94 mm Hg (95% CI -2.44 to -1.43)), higher total cholesterol (TC) (0.44 mmol/L (95% CI 0.38 to 0.51)), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) (0.26 mmol/L (95% CI 0.22 to 0.31)), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) sex-standardized (0.02 mmol/L (95% CI 0.00 to 0.04)), and lower TC:HDL ratio (-0.29 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.23)) and triglycerides (geometric mean ratio 0.91 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.98)). Women had a 16% higher probability of being treated with antihypertensive medication in the presence of high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and elevated SBP than men (relative risk 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98)), whereas no sex differences were found for glucose-lowering medication and lipid-modifying medication. Among those treated, women were less likely to achieve treatment targets of HbA_1c (0.92 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.98)) and LDL-c (0.89 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92)) than men, while no differences for SBP were found.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Dutch T2D population, women had a slightly different cardiometabolic risk profile compared with men and a substantially higher BMI. Women had a higher probability of being treated with antihypertensive medication in the presence of high CVD risk and elevated SBP than men, and were less likely than men to achieve treatment targets for HbA_1c and LDL levels.

Associations of Abdominal Subcutaneous and Visceral Fat with Insulin Resistance and Secretion Differ Between Men and Women: The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity Study

BACKGROUND

Abdominal obesity is a well-established risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. However, sex differences may exist. We aimed to investigate the associations of abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) with insulin resistance and insulin secretion in men and women.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study, fasting and postprandial concentrations of glucose and insulin were measured and abdominal fat depots were assessed using magnetic resonance imaging in 2253 participants (53% women). With linear regression analysis, we examined associations of abdominal SAT and VAT with measures of insulin resistance and insulin secretion in men and women, while adjusting for age, ethnicity, education, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, menopausal state and hormone use in women, and models with VAT additionally for total body fat.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 56 (6) years, body mass index: 25.9 (3.9) kg/m², VAT: 89 (55) cm², and SAT: 235 (95) cm². In the multivariate models in men, per SD of VAT the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was 20% (95% CI: 14-26) higher, and per SD SAT 21% (15-27) higher. In women, per SD of VAT the HOMA-IR was 40% (29-52) higher, and per SD SAT 12% (6-19) higher. Associations with measures of insulin secretion were weaker than with insulin resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

In men, abdominal SAT and VAT were associated with insulin resistance to a similar extent, whereas in women particularly VAT was associated with insulin resistance and insulin secretion. Future studies need to unravel the mechanisms underlying the metabolic effects of visceral fat in women. Simple and less expensive measures that can distinct abdominal subcutaneous and visceral fat are needed for an improved metabolic risk stratification.