Aims/hypothesis: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Diabetes has rapidly emerged as a major comorbidity for COVID-19 severity. However, the phenotypic characteristics of diabetes in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We conducted a nationwide multicentre observational study in people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 in 53 French centres in the period 10–31 March 2020. The primary outcome combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission. Age- and sex-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the prognostic value of clinical and biological features with the endpoint. ORs are reported for a 1 SD increase after standardisation. Results: The current analysis focused on 1317 participants: 64.9% men, mean age 69.8 ± 13.0 years, median BMI 28.4 (25th–75th percentile: 25.0–32.7) kg/m²; with a predominance of type 2 diabetes (88.5%). Microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications were found in 46.8% and 40.8% of cases, respectively. The primary outcome was encountered in 29.0% (95% CI 26.6, 31.5) of participants, while 10.6% (9.0, 12.4) died and 18.0% (16.0, 20.2) were discharged on day 7. In univariate analysis, characteristics prior to admission significantly associated with the primary outcome were sex, BMI and previous treatment with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, but not age, type of diabetes, HbA_1c, diabetic complications or glucose-lowering therapies. In multivariable analyses with covariates prior to admission, only BMI remained positively associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.28 [1.10, 1.47]). On admission, dyspnoea (OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.35]), as well as lymphocyte count (OR 0.67 [0.50, 0.88]), C-reactive protein (OR 1.93 [1.43, 2.59]) and AST (OR 2.23 [1.70, 2.93]) levels were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Finally, age (OR 2.48 [1.74, 3.53]), treated obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 2.80 [1.46, 5.38]), and microvascular (OR 2.14 [1.16, 3.94]) and macrovascular complications (OR 2.54 [1.44, 4.50]) were independently associated with the risk of death on day 7. Conclusions/interpretations: In people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19, BMI, but not long-term glucose control, was positively and independently associated with tracheal intubation and/or death within 7 days. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04324736.

Background: The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and associated co-morbidities are rising worldwide. Aims: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for preventing T2DM. Methods: A European multidisciplinary consortium systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for T2DM prevention using SIGN criteria. Results: Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are the main modifiable risk factors. Age and ethnicity are non-modifiable risk factors. Case-finding should follow a step-wise procedure using risk questionnaires and oral glucose tolerance testing. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance and/or fasting glucose are at high-risk and should be prioritized for intensive intervention. Interventions supporting lifestyle changes delay the onset of T2DM in high-risk adults (number-needed-to-treat: 6.4 over 1.8–4.6 years). These should be supported by inter-sectoral strategies that create health promoting environments. Sustained body weight reduction by ≥ 5 % lowers risk. Currently metformin, acarbose and orlistat can be considered as second-line prevention options. The population approach should use organized measures to raise awareness and change lifestyle with specific approaches for adolescents, minorities and disadvantaged people. Interventions promoting lifestyle changes are more effective if they target both diet and physical activity, mobilize social support, involve the planned use of established behaviour change techniques, and provide frequent contacts. Cost-effectiveness analysis should take a societal perspective. Conclusions: Prevention using lifestyle modifications in high-risk individuals is cost-effective and should be embedded in evaluated models of care. Effective prevention plans are predicated upon sustained government initiatives comprising advocacy, community support, fiscal and legislative changes, private sector engagement and continuous media communication.

When we ask people what they value most, health is usually top of the list. While effective care is available for many chronic diseases, the fact remains that for the patient, the tax payer and the whole of society: Prevention is Better Than Cure. Diabetes and its complications are a serious threat to the survival and well-being of an increasing number of people. It is predicted that one in ten Europeans aged 20–79 will have developed diabetes by 2030. Once a disease of old age, diabetes is now common among adults of all ages and is beginning to affect adolescents and even children. Diabetes accounts for up to 18 % of total healthcare expenditure in Europe. The Good News is That Diabetes is Preventable. Compelling evidence shows that the onset of diabetes can be prevented or delayed greatly in individuals at high risk (people with impaired glucose regulation). Clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50 % following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. These results have since been reproduced in real-world prevention programmes. Even a delay of a few years in the progression to diabetes is expected to reduce diabetes-related complications, such as heart, kidney and eye disease and, consequently, to reduce the cost to society. A comprehensive approach to diabetes prevention should combine population based primary prevention with programmes targeted at those who are at high risk. This approach should take account of the local circumstances and diversity within modern society (e.g. social inequalities). The challenge goes beyond the healthcare system. We need to encourage collaboration across many different sectors: education providers, non-governmental organisations, the food industry, the media, urban planners and politicians all have a very important role to play. Small Changes in Lifestyle Will Bring Big Changes in Health.
Through Joint Efforts, More People Will be Reached.
The Time to Act is Now.

OBJECTIVE— The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of silent myocardial ischemia (SMI) and cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in asymptomatic diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— We recruited 120 diabetic patients with no history of myocardial infarction or angina, a normal 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and two or more additional risk factors. SMI assessment was carried out by means of an ECG stress test, a thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy with dipyridamole, and 48-h ECG monitoring. CAN was searched for by standardized tests evaluating heart rate variations. Accurate follow-up information for 3-7 years (mean 4.5) was obtained in 107 patients. RESULTS— There was evidence of SMI in 33 patients (30.7%). CAN was detected in 33 of the 75 patients (38.9%) who were tested, and a major cardiac event occurred in 11 of them. Among these 75 patients, the proportion of major cardiac events in the SMI⁺ patients was not significantly higher than that in the SMI^- patients (6 of 25 vs. 5 of 50 patients), whereas it was significantly higher in the CAN⁺ patients than in the CAN^- patients (8 of 33 vs. 3 of 42 patients; P = 0.04), with a relative risk of 4.16 (95% CI 1.01-17.19) and was the highest in the patients with both SMI and CAN (5 of 10 patients). After adjusting for SMI, there was a significant association between CAN and major cardiac events (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS— In asymptomatic diabetic patients, CAN appears to be a better predictor of major cardiac events than SMI. The risk linked to CAN appears to be independent of SMI and is the highest when CAN is associated with SMI.

Insulin resistance plays a role in hepatocarcinogenesis and is decreased by metformin treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of metformin treatment on the prognosis of compensated hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. We studied an observational prospective cohort (1988-2007) at a university hospital referral center. A total of 100 consecutive diabetic patients (53 men, age 61 ± 11 yr) with ongoing HCV cirrhosis and no contraindication for metformin were included in a screening program for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The patients were prospectively followed up for HCC incidence, liver-related death, or hepatic transplantation. The level of platelet count was significantly lower in patients treated with metformin (n = 26) compared with those not treated with metformin (n = 74) [117 (interquartile range, 83-166) vs. 149 (105-192) Giga/liter, P = 0.045]. During a median follow-up of 5.7 (3.8-9.5) yr, one patient was lost to follow-up, 39 developed a HCC, and 33 died from liver causes or were transplanted. The 5-yr incidence of HCC was 9.5 and 31.2% (P = 0.001) and of liver-related death/transplantation, 5.9 and 17.4% (P = 0.013), in patients who received metformin treatment and in those who did not, respectively. In multivariate analysis, metformin treatment was independently associated with a decrease in HCC occurrence [hazard ratio, 0.19 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.79); P = 0.023] and liver-related death or transplantation [hazard ratio, 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.99); P = 0.049]. In patients with type 2 diabetes and HCV cirrhosis, use of metformin is independently associated with reduced incidence of HCC and liver-related death/transplantation.