The Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Glycaemic Control and Lipid Profile in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Omorogieva Ojo, Xiao Hua Wang, Osarhumwese Osaretin Ojo, Edith Orjih, Nivedita Pavithran, Amanda Rodrigues Amorim Adegboye, Qian Qian Feng, Paul McCrone

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
24 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control and other metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes is still evolving. Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: The PRISMA framework was the method used to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis, and the search strategy was based on the population, intervention, control and outcome (PICO) model. The Health Sciences Research databases was accessed via EBSCO-host, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. Searches were conducted from inception of the databases until 17 September 2021. Results: The results identified three distinct areas: glycaemic control, lipid parameters and body mass index. It was found that COVID-19 lockdown led to a significant (p < 0.01) increase in the levels of glycated haemoglobin (%) compared with pre-COVID group (gp) with a mean difference of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.38). Eleven studies contributed to the data for glycated haemoglobin analysis with a total of 16,895 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown gp, n = 8417; pre-COVID gp, n = 8478). The meta-analysis of fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) also showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in levels of post-COVID-19 lockdown gp compared with pre-COVID gp, with a mean difference of 7.19 (95% CI: 5.28, 9.10). Six studies contributed to fasting plasma glucose analysis involving a total of 2327 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown, n = 1159; pre-COVID gp, n = 1168). The body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2 ) analysis also demonstrated that post-COVID-19 lockdown gp had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher BMI than the pre-COVID gp with a mean difference of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.99; 1.28), involving six studies and a total of 2363 participants (post-COVID-19 lockdown gp, n = 1186; pre-COVID gp, n = 1177). There were significantly (p < 0.05) lower levels of total cholesterol (mmol/L), triglyceride (mmol/L) and LDL cholesterol (mmol/L), and higher levels of HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) in the post-COVID-19 lockdown gp compared with pre-COVID gp, although these results were not consistent following sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: The findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis have demonstrated that COVID-19 lockdown resulted in a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the levels of glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the effect of the lockdown on lipid parameters, including total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL and HDL cholesterol was not consistent.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1095
Number of pages19
JournalInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Volume19
Issue number3
Early online date19 Jan 2022
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 19 Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Keywords

  • Body mass index
  • Coronavirus disease-2019
  • COVID-19
  • COVID-19 lockdown
  • Glycated haemoglobin
  • Lipid parameters
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • Type 2 diabetes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pollution
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Glycaemic Control and Lipid Profile in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this