AREAS COVERED: We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.
EXPERT OPINION: The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.
OBJECTIVES: To describe and summarize the assessment of knowledge and perceptions about CVD risk and preventive approaches among patients with T2DM.
METHODS: A scoping review methodology was adopted, and three scientific databases, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and PubMed were searched using predefined search terms. A multistage screening process that considered relevancy, publication year (2009-2019), English language, and article type (original research) was followed. We formulated research questions focused on the assessment of levels of knowledge and perceptions of the illness relevant to CVD prevention and the identification of associated patients' characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included. Patients were not confident to identify CVD risk and other clinical consequences that may occur in the prognostic pathway of T2DM. Furthermore, patients were less likely to identify all CV risk factors indicating a lack of understanding of the multi-- factorial contribution of CVD risk. Patients' beliefs about medications were correlated with their level of adherence to medications for CVD prevention. Many knowledge gaps were identified, including the basic disease expectations at the time of diagnosis, identification of individuals' CVD risk factors, and management aspects. Knowledge and perceptions were affected by patients' demographic characteristics, e.g., educational level, race, age, and area of residence.
CONCLUSION: There are knowledge gaps concerning the understanding of CVD risk among patients with T2DM. The findings necessitate educational initiatives to boost CVD prevention among patients with T2DM. Furthermore, these should be individualized based on patients' characteristics, knowledge gaps, disease duration, and estimated CVD risk.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.
RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.
CONCLUSION: In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 340 caregivers of chronic kidney patients undergoing hemodialysis. The setting was in Terengganu, Malaysia. The caregivers completed the measures of caregiving burden, quality of life, social support, and symptoms of anxiety and depression.
RESULTS: About 28.8% and 52.4% of caregivers showed clinically moderate levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, respectively. Furthermore, 35.9% and 3.8% of them showed clinically high levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, respectively. Analyses showed that general quality of life was a significant predictor of both anxiety and depressive symptoms. Burden and psychological domains of quality of life significantly predicted anxiety. In addition, a lack of social support was a determinant of depressive symptoms. Evidence suggested that social support moderated the burden-anxiety relationship. Specifically, caregivers with low levels of social support showed more elevated levels of anxiety symptoms when their burden was higher.
CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for early detection to initiate prompt treatment in this population. The study provides some important insights into offering comprehensive intervention to help caregivers cope more effectively through the provision of sufficient social support to buffer the effects of caregiving burden and improve mental health.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published studies to assess the association of RAS inhibitors with mortality as well as disease severity in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve relevant original studies investigating mortality and severity (severe/critical disease) in COVID-19 patients with and without exposure to RAS inhibitors.
RESULTS: A total of 59 original studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty-four studies that reported adjusted effect sizes (24 studies reported mortality outcomes and 16 studies reported disease severity outcomes), conducted in RAS inhibitor-exposed and unexposed groups, were pooled in random-effects models to estimate overall risk. Quality assessment of studies revealed that most of the studies included were of fair quality. The use of an ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.95; n = 18,749) or hazard (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; n = 26,598) of mortality compared with non-use of ACEI/ARB. However, the use of an ACEI/ARB was non-significantly associated with lower odds (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; n = 7446) or hazard (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.66; n = 6325) of developing severe/critical disease compared with non-use of an ACEI/ARB.
DISCUSSION: Since there was no increased risk of harm, the use of RAS inhibitors for hypertension and other established clinical indications can be maintained in COVID-19 patients.