Impact of Prediabetes and Type-2 Diabetes on Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19

Introduction. The true impact of prediabetes and type-2 diabetes in patients with COVID-19 remains unknown, with studies thus far providing conflicting evidence. Methods. This is a single-center retrospective observational study involving 843 hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes, mortality, and mechanical ventilation use were compared among the three groups: control, prediabetes, and type-2 diabetes. Binomial regression analysis was used to determine predictors of mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement. Results. Age was a significant predictor of mortality. On stratifying our patients based on their age, older patients aged 55 years and above had no difference in mortality or mechanical ventilation requirement among the three groups of control, prediabetes, and type-2 diabetes. However, among the younger population aged less than 55 years, patients with type-2 diabetes had significantly higher mortality as compared with patients in control and prediabetes groups (27% vs 12.5% vs 9%, p 0.025). Additionally, newly diagnosed type-2 diabetes patients demonstrated lower mortality rate in comparison to previously known type-2 diabetes patients (18% vs 40%, p 0.005). Outcomes in the prediabetes group were similar to that in the control group. Admission hyperglycemia was associated with higher mortality regardless of diabetes status. Conclusion. In older patients aged 55 years and above, status of type-2 diabetes does not influence their mortality. However, in younger patients aged less than 55 years, the presence of type-2 diabetes is an important driver of mortality. Newly diagnosed type-2 diabetes, in comparison with previously diagnosed type-2 diabetes, may have better survival. Presence of prediabetes did not affect outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection

Role of body mass index in outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 illness

Abstract Background Since the start of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, several studies have linked obesity with severity of illness as well as mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Outcomes of patients with overweight or obesity, who develop critical illness, have been studied extensively over the past decade where the studies have shown conflicting results. In this study, we aimed to assess the association between the body mass index (BMI) classes and outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of all adults admitted to our hospital with COVID‐19 illness between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. Patients were divided into four groups based on their BMI range as follows: patients with underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), patients with normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), patients with overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2), and patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Results 1274 patients were admitted during the study period. There were 24 (1.9%) patients with underweight, 268 (21%) patients with normal weight, 445 (34.9%) patients with overweight, and 537 (42.2%) patients with obesity. Patients with obesity were younger (p < 0.001) and there were more females among patients with underweight and patients with obesity (54% and 48% respectively, p < 0.001). There were no differences in subgroup with regards to presence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and dyslipidemia. In a multivariate logistic regression model, patients with overweight and patients with obesity had higher odds of requiring mechanical ventilation. BMI class was not associated with difference in survival time in a multivariate analysis. Conclusions In our large single‐center study of hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, patients with overweight and obesity had higher need for mechanical ventilation but had similar mortality when compared to patients with normal weight and underweight

Does Nursery-Based Intensified Anticipatory Guidance Reduce Emergency Department Use for Nonurgent Conditions in the First Month of Life? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an intensified anticipatory guidance program in the nursery on Emergency Department (ED) use for nonurgent conditions (NUCs) in the neonatal period. Methods. Parturient mothers of healthy newborns were randomized to an intervention group or control group. Baseline and 1-month follow-up knowledge surveys regarding newborn care were conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of neonates who used the ED for a NUC. Secondary outcome was change in caregivers’ knowledge on NUC. Results. Of a total of 594 mothers, 323 (54%) agreed to participate and were randomized to intervention (n=170) or control (n=153) group. Most were Hispanic (68%), single (61%), primiparous (39%), and without high school diploma (44%). 35 (21%) neonates in the intervention group and 41 (27%) in the control group were brought at least once for a NUC to the ED (p=0.12). There was no statistically significant difference in within subject change on knowledge scores between the two study arms. Conclusions. Neonatal ED visits for NUCs occur frequently. This nursery-based intensified anticipatory guidance program had no statistically significant impact on neonatal ED use for NUC, nor on neonatal care-relevant knowledge among parturient mothers. Alternative modalities and timing of parental educational intervention may need to be considered. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials Number NCT01859065 (Clinicaltrials.gov)