Objectives: Pen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS. Methods: A systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done. Results: In all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36. Conclusions: There is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.

No abstract

Objective To describe the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Latin American rheumatologists from a professional, economic, and occupational point of view. Methods We conducted an observational cross-sectional study using an online survey sent to rheumatologists of each non-English-speaking country member of the Pan American League of Rheumatology Associations (PANLAR). A specific questionnaire was developed. Results Our survey included 1097 rheumatologists from 19 Latin American countries. Median (IQR) age of respondents was 48 (40-59) years and 618 (56.3%) were female. Duration of practice since graduation as rheumatologist was 17 years, and 585 (53.3%) were under 50 years of age. Most rheumatologists worked in private practice (81.8%) and almost half worked in institutional outpatient centers (55%) and in-patient care (49.9%). The median number of weekly hours (IQR) of face-to-face practice before the pandemic was 27 (15-40) but it was reduced to 10 (5- 20) during the pandemic. Telehealth was used by 866 (78.9%) respondents during the pandemic. Most common methods of communication were video calls (555; 50.6%), telephone calls (499; 45.5%) and WhatsApp voice calls (423; 38.6%). A reduction in monthly wages was reported by 946 (86.2%) respondents. Consultation fees also were reduced and 88 (8%) rheumatologists stated they had lost their jobs. A reduction in patient adherence to medication was reported by nearly 50% of respondents. Eighty-one (7.4%) rheumatologists received a COVID-19 diagnosis and 7 (8.6%) of them were hospitalized. Conclusion COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped rheumatology practice in Latin America and has had a profound impact on rheumatologists' behaviors and clinical practice.