Dataset Information

Improved glycaemia during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown is sustained post-lockdown and during the "Eat Out to Help Out" Government Scheme, in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The majority of studies report that the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown did not have a detrimental effect on glycaemia. We sought to explore the impact of lockdown on glycaemia and whether this is sustained following easing of restrictions.

Methods

Retrospective, observational analysis in adults and children with type 1 diabetes attending a UK specialist centre, using real-time or intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Data from the following 28-day time periods were collected: (i) pre-lockdown; (ii) during lockdown; (iii) immediately after lockdown; and (iv) a month following relaxation of restrictions (coinciding with Government-subsidised restaurant food). Data were analysed for times in glycaemic ranges and are expressed as median (IQR).

Results

145 adults aged 35.5 (25.8-51.3) years with diabetes duration of 19.0 (7.0-29.0) years on multiple daily injections of insulin (60%) and continuous insulin infusion (40%) were included. In adults, % time in range (70-180mg/dL) increased during lockdown (60.2 (45.2-69.3)%) compared to pre-lockdown (56.7 (43.5-65.3)%; p<0.001). This was maintained in the post-lockdown time periods. Similarly, % time above range (>180mg/dL) reduced in lockdown compared to pre-lockdown (p = 0.01), which was sustained thereafter. In children, no significant changes to glycaemia were observed during lockdown. In multivariable analysis, a greater increase in %TIR 3.9-10mmol/L (70-180mg/dL) during lockdown was associated with higher levels of deprivation (coefficient: 4.208, 95% CI 0.588 to 7.828; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Glycaemia in adults improved during lockdown, with people from more deprived areas most likely to benefit. This effect was sustained after easing of restrictions, with government-subsidised restaurant eating having no adverse impact on glycaemia.

SUBMITTER: Avari P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8291633 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The UK implemented a lockdown in Spring (2020) to curtail the person-to-person transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Measures restricted movements to one outing per day for exercise and shopping, otherwise most people were restricted to their dwelling except for key workers (e.g. medical, supermarkets, and transport). In this study, we quantified changes to air quality across the United Kingdom from 30/03/2020 to 03/05/2020 (weeks 14-18), the period of most stringent travel restrictions. Daily pollutant measurements of NO2, O3 and PM2.5 from the national network of monitoring sites during this period were compared with measurements over the same period during 2017-19. Comparisons were also made with predicted concentrations for the 2020 period from business-as-usual (BAU) modelling, where the contributions of normal anthropogenic activities were estimated under the observed meteorological conditions. During the lockdown study period there was a 69% reduction in traffic overall (74% reduction in light and 35% in heavy vehicles). Measurements from 129 monitoring stations, identified mean reductions in NO2 of 38.3% (-8.8 μg/m3) and PM2.5 of 16.5% (-2.2 μg/m3). Improvements in NO2 and PM2.5 were largest at urban traffic sites and more modest at background locations where a large proportion of the population live. In contrast, O3 concentrations on average increased by 7.6% (+4.8 μg/m3) with the largest increases at roadside sites due to reductions in local emissions of NO. A lack of VOC monitoring limited our capacity to interpret changes in O3 at urban background locations. BAU models predicted comparable NO2 reductions and O3 gains, although PM2.5 episodes would have been more prominent without lockdown. Results demonstrate the relatively modest contribution of traffic to air quality, suggesting that sustained improvements in air quality require actions across various sectors, including working with international and European initiatives on long-range transport air pollutants, especially PM2.5 and O3.

Project description:Research on impact of publicly financed health insurance has paid relatively little attention to the nature of healthcare provision the schemes engage. India's National Health Insurance Scheme or RSBY was made universal by Chhattisgarh State in 2012. In the State, public and private sectors provide hospital services in a context of extensive gender, social, economic and geographical inequities. This study examined enrolment, utilization (public and private) and out of pocket (OOP) expenditure for the insured and uninsured, in Chhattisgarh. The Chhattisgarh State Central sample (n = 6026 members) of the 2014 National Sample Survey (71st Round) on Health was extracted and analyzed. Variables of enrolment, hospitalization, out of pocket (OOP) expenditure and catastrophic expenditure were descriptively analyzed. Multivariate analyses of factors associated with enrolment, hospitalization (by sector) and OOP expenditure were conducted, taking into account gender, socio-economic status, residence, type of facility and ailment. Insurance coverage was 38.8%. Rates of hospitalization were 33/1000 population among the insured and 29/1000 among the uninsured. Of those insured and hospitalized, 67.2% utilized the public sector. Women, rural residents, Scheduled Tribes and poorer groups were more likely to utilize the public sector for hospitalizations. Although the insured were less likely to incur out of pocket (OOP) expenditure, 95.1% of insured private sector users and 66.0% of insured public sector users, still incurred costs. Median OOP payments in the private sector were eight times those in the public sector. Of households with at least one member hospitalized, 35.5% experienced catastrophic health expenditures (>10% monthly household consumption expenditure). The study finds that despite insurance coverage, the majority still incurred OOP expenditure. The public sector was nevertheless less expensive, and catered to the more vulnerable groups. It suggests the need to further examine the roles of public and private sectors in financial risk protection through government health insurance.