Aims: to evaluate the effect of home confinement related to COVID-19 lockdown on metabolic control in subjects with T2DM in Italy. Methods: we evaluated the metabolic profile of 304 individuals with T2DM (65% males; age 69 ± 9 years; diabetes duration 16 ± 10 years) attending our Diabetes Unit early at the end of lockdown period (June 8 to July 7, 2020) and compared it with the latest one recorded before lockdown. Results: There was no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose (8.6 ± 2.1 vs 8.8 ± 2. 5 mmol/L; P = 0.353) and HbA1c (7.1 ± 0.9 vs 7.1 ± 0.9%; P = 0.600) before and after lockdown. Worsening of glycaemic control (i.e., DHbA1c 0.5%) occurred more frequently in older patients (32.2% in > 80 years vs 21.3% in 61-80 years vs 9.3% in < 60 years; P = 0.05) and in insulin users (28.8 vs 16.5%; P = 0.012). On multivariable analysis, age > 80 years (OR 4.62; 95%CI: 1.22-16.07) and insulin therapy (OR 1.96; 95%CI: 1.10-3.50) remained independently associated to worsening in glycaemic control. Conclusions: Home confinement related to COVID-19 lockdown did not exert a negative effect on glycaemic control in patients with T2DM. However, age and insulin therapy can identify patients at greatest risk of deterioration of glycaemic control.

Aims To assess the effects of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic on glucose metrics, measured by glucose monitoring systems, in adult individuals with type 1 diabetes. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles from MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science up to February 28, 2021, using “diabetes”, “lockdown”, and “glucose” as key search terms. Time in range (TIR) was the main outcome; other metrics were time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), mean blood glucose (MBG) and its variability (%CV), estimated HbA1c (eA1c) or glucose management indicator (GMI). Results Seventeen studies for a total of 3,441 individuals with type 1 diabetes were included in the analysis. In the lockdown period, TIR 70-180 mg/dl increased by 3.05% (95% CI 1.67-4.43%; p < 0.0001) while TAR (>180 mg/dL and >250 mg/dL) declined by 3.39% (-5.14 to -1.63%) and 1.96% (-2.51 to -1.42%), respectively ( p < 0.0001 for both). Both TBR <70 and <54 mg/dL remained unchanged. MBG slightly decreased by 5.40 mg/dL (-7.29 to – 3.51 mg/dL; p < 0.0001) along with a reduction in %CV. Pooled eA1c and GMI decreased by 0.18% (-0.24 to -0.11%; p < 0.0001) and a similar reduction was observed when GMI alone was considered (0.15%, -0.23 to -0.07%; p < 0.0001). Sensor use was only slightly but not significantly reduced during lockdown. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that well-controlled people with type 1 diabetes on both MDI and CSII with continuous or flash glucose monitoring did not experience a deterioration in glucose control throughout the COVID-19 lockdown, showing a modest, though statistically significant improvement in many glucose control parameters.

Purpose To evaluate the risk of mass enlargement and endocrine function modification in patients with adrenal incidentaloma (AI). Methods In this retrospective study, we examined clinical and hormonal characteristics of 310 patients with AI (200 females and 110 males; age: 58.3 ± 12.9 years), followed up for a median (interquartile range) of 31.4 months (13.0–78.6) and evaluated for possible modification in adrenal mass size and hormonal function. The hormonal evaluation included morning serum cortisol and plasma ACTH at 8 a.m., aldosterone, plasma renin activity/direct renin concentration, and 24-h urine metanephrines/normetanephrines. One microgram overnight dexamethasone suppression test (DST) was performed. Autonomous cortisol secretion (ACS) was diagnosed in the presence of cortisol after 1 mg DST > 5 μg/dl (138 nmol/l) or >1.8 and ≤5 μg/dl (50–138 nmol/l) and at least one of the following: (i) low ACTH; (ii) increased 24-h urinary-free cortisol; (iii) absence of cortisol rhythm; and (iv) post-LDDST cortisol level > 1.8 μg/dl (50 nmol/l). When there was no biochemical evidence of adrenal hormonal hyperactivity, AIs were classified as nonfunctioning (NFAIs). The mass was considered significantly enlarged when the size increase was more than 20% and at least 5 mm compared to baseline. Results At diagnosis, NFAIs were found in 209 patients, while ACS and overt adrenal hyperfunction were diagnosed in 81 and 20 patients, respectively. During follow-up, 3.3% and 1.5% of patients with NFAI developed subtle and overt endocrine hyperfunction, respectively, while a significant mass enlargement was observed in 17.7% of all AIs. The risk of developing ACS was significantly higher in patients with adenoma >28 mm (hazard ratio [HR] 12.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33–66.52, P = 0.003), in those with bilateral adrenal tumors (HR: 5.36; 95% CI, 1.17–24.48, P = 0.030), and with low/suppressed ACTH values (HR: 11.2, 95% CI 2.06–60.77; P = 0.005). The risk of mass enlargement was lower for patients in the fourth quartile of body mass index than those in the first quartile (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14–0.78; P = 0.012). Conclusions In patients with AI, the risk of developing hormonal hyperfunction and mass enlargement is overall low, although some tumor characteristics and anthropometric features might increase this risk. Taking account of all these aspects is important for planning a tailored follow-up in AI patients.

No abstract