Mònica Gratacòs

Sex and gender play a significant role in shaping the presentation, management, and outcomes of diabetes mellitus (DM). There is increasing recognition that physiological differences, treatment responses, risk of complications, and access to healthcare resources differ significantly between men and women, contributing to variations in vulnerability, disease progression, and outcomes. This review examines the current understanding of sex‐ and gender‐based differences in glycaemic and metabolic control, acute and chronic diabetes‐related complications, therapeutic efficacy, and adverse events. It also explores how disparities in socioeconomic status, self‐care behaviours, healthcare access, and mental health burdens influence diabetes prevention and management across genders. Recognising these disparities, we provide evidence‐based recommendations to guide personalised and gender‐sensitive approaches to diabetes care, focusing on addressing women's unique challenges. These recommendations include the need for equitable treatment practices, targeted interventions, and culturally appropriate prevention strategies. Finally, we emphasise the importance of promoting inclusive research practices and advocating for large‐scale prospective studies and clinical trials that account for sex and gender differences to improve outcomes for all individuals living with diabetes.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) at the intersection of health, medical informatics, and business aim to enhance patient care through personalised digital approaches. Ensuring the efficacy and reliability of these innovations demands rigorous clinical validation. A PubMed literature review (January 2006 to July 2023) identified 1250 papers, highlighting growing academic interest. A focused narrative review (January 2018 to July 2023) delved into challenges, highlighting issues such as diverse regulatory landscapes, adoption issues in complex healthcare systems, and a plethora of evaluation frameworks lacking pragmatic guidance. Existing frameworks often omit crucial criteria, neglect empirical evidence, and clinical effectiveness is rarely included as a criterion for DHT quality. The paper underscores the urgency of addressing challenges in accreditation, adoption, business models, and integration to safeguard the quality, efficacy, and safety of DHTs. A pivotal illustration of collaborative efforts to address these challenges is exemplified by the Digital Health Validation Center, dedicated to generating clinical evidence of innovative healthcare technologies and facilitating seamless technology transfer. In conclusion, it is necessary to harmonise evaluation approaches and frameworks, improve regulatory clarity, and commit to collaboration to integrate rigorous clinical validation and empirical evidence throughout the DHT life cycle.

Women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a 40% excess risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) compared to men due to the interaction between sex and gender factors in the development, risk, and outcomes of the disease. Our aim was to assess differences between women and men with T2DM in the management and degree of control of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF). This was a matched cross-sectional study including 140,906 T2DM subjects without previous CVD and 39,186 T2DM subjects with prior CVD obtained from the System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database. The absolute and relative differences between means or proportions were calculated to assess sex differences. T2DM women without previous CVD showed higher levels of total cholesterol (12.13 mg/dL (0.31 mmol/L); 95% CI = 11.9–12.4) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c; 5.50 mg/dL (0.14 mmol/L); 95% CI = 5.3–5.7) than men. The recommended LDL-c target was less frequently achieved by women as it was the simultaneous control of different CVRF. In secondary prevention, women showed higher levels of total cholesterol (16.89 mg/dL (0.44 mmol/L); 95% CI = 16.5–17.3), higher levels of LDL-c (8.42 mg/dL (0.22 mmol/L); 95% CI = 8.1–8.8), and higher levels of triglycerides (11.34 mg/dL (0.13 mmol/L); 95% CI = 10.3–12.4) despite similar rates of statin prescription. Recommended targets were less often achieved by women, especially LDL-c < 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L). The composite control was 22% less frequent in women than men. In conclusion, there were substantial sex differences in CVRF management of people with diabetes, with women less likely than men to be on LDL-c target, mainly those in secondary prevention. This could be related to the treatment gap between genders.

Aim This study’s objective was to assess the risk of severe in-hospital complications of patients admitted for COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus (DM). Design This was a cross-sectional study. Settings We used pseudonymised medical record data provided by six general hospitals from the HM Hospitales group in Spain. Outcome measures Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify variables associated with mortality and the composite of mortality or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in the overall population, and stratified for the presence or absence of DM. Spline analysis was conducted on the entire population to investigate the relationship between glucose levels at admission and outcomes. Results Overall, 1621 individuals without DM and 448 with DM were identified in the database. Patients with DM were on average 5.1 years older than those without. The overall in-hospital mortality was 18.6% (N=301), and was higher among patients with DM than those without (26.3% vs 11.3%; pConclusion The results confirm the high burden associated with DM in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 infection, particularly among men, the elderly and those with impaired kidney function. Moreover, hyperglycaemia on admission was strongly associated with poor outcomes, suggesting that personalised optimisation could help to improve outcome during the hospital stay.

Background: We evaluated whether, in subjects receiving haemodialysis (HD), the presence of diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) was associated with increased mortality compared with subjects with diabetes mellitus (DM) without DFS and with non-diabetic subjects. Methods: Retrospective, observational study in 220 subjects followed for six years. We calculated and compared the frequency and 5-year cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, CV events, major adverse CV events (MACE), and new foot ulcer (FU) or amputation. We also examined prognostic factors of all-cause and CV mortality based on baseline characteristics. Results: DM patients had a 1.98 times higher probability of all-cause mortality than those without DM (p = 0.001) and 2.42 times higher likelihood of CV mortality and new FU or amputation (p = 0.002 and p = 0.008, respectively). In the DM cohort, only the risk of a new FU or amputation was 2.69 times higher among those with previous DFS (p = 0.021). In patients with DM, older age was the only predictor of all-cause and CV mortality (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively). Conclusions: Although all-cause and CV mortality were increased on HD subjects with DM, the presence of DFS did not modify the excess risk. Additional studies are warranted to further explore the impact of DFS in subjects with DM undergoing HD.

This was a prospective, observational study to compare the burden of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by carotid ultrasonography in a cohort of subjects with prediabetes vs. subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) from a non-urban Mediterranean population. Atherosclerosis was assessed through carotid intima-media thickness (c-IMT), the presence/absence of carotid plaques, and plaque number. Among 550 subjects included, 224 (40.7%) had prediabetes. The mean c-IMT and the prevalence of carotid plaque were significantly higher in the prediabetes group compared to the NGT group (0.72 vs. 0.67 mm, p < 0.001; and 37.9% vs. 19.6%; p < 0.001, respectively). Older age, male gender, and increased systolic blood pressure were positively correlated with c-IMT and were independent predictors of the presence of plaques. In contrast, prediabetes and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-c were predictors of the presence of plaque (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–2.57; p = 0.03 and OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.00–1.02; p = 0.006, respectively) together with tobacco exposure and the leukocyte count (OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.08–2.89; p = 0.023 and OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.05–1.38; p = 0.008, respectively). In a non-urban Mediterranean population, prediabetes was associated with established subclinical carotid atherosclerosis. These findings could have implications for the prevention and treatment of CV risk in these subjects before the first symptoms of cardiovascular disease appear.

To assess the clinical characteristics, the prescription pattern of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) users, and HbA1c and weight change, we retrospectively assessed patients with type 2 diabetes by initiating GLP-1RA as an add-on to the standard of care in Catalonia. The mean change from the baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and weight at 6 and 12 months of therapy was calculated, and we assessed the predictors of the HbA1c reduction of ≥1% and/or the weight reduction of ≥3% as recommended by the Catalan Health Service. In 2854 patients who initiated a GLP-1RA during 2014 and 2015, the overall mean HbA1c values were reduced from the baseline by −0.84% (SD = 1.66) (−9.2 mmol/mol) and lost on average 2.73 kg (SD = 6.2). About 44% percent of patients decreased their HbA1c by ≥1%; 44% decreased their weight by ≥3%; and only 22% met both of them together. The odds of achieving a reduction of ≥1% in initial HbA1c were two-fold higher for patients with higher baseline levels, and the likelihood of a reduction of ≥3% in the initial weight was associated with a higher BMI at the baseline, but they were independent of each other. The composite outcome (target 1% HbA1c reduction and 3% weight loss) to evaluate both the GLP-1RA clinical benefit and treatment withdrawal should be judged from a patient-centered approach.