Another way to quit smoking: Homeopathy

Between 30-40 per cent of deaths from studies in intensive care units from different countries are people with diabetes, said Paul Zimmet, Professor of Diabetes, Monash University, Australia.

Zimmet, who is President International Diabetes Federation, added that the actual mechanism as to why COVID-19 may cause diabetes is as yet unknown, however, several possibilities exist. "COVID-19 is a very destructive and cunning virus and causes terrible damage to tissues including the lungs and pancreas," said Zimmet. Below are excerpts from an exclusive chat with IANS.

Why do you say Diabetes is dynamite if a person has been infected with COVID-19?

There have been many deaths in many countries, e.g. Italy, China, the UK and US among people with diabetes after infection with COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2).

The mortality tends to be mainly in older Type 2 diabetics. Between 30-40 per cent of deaths from studies in intensive care units from different countries are people with diabetes. This outcome and other complications from the virus, particularly pneumonia, are more likely in people with diabetes which is poorly controlled with high blood sugars (poor metabolic control).

Diabetes is often associated with other chronic conditions, including obesity, hypertension and heart disease compounding the risk. These latter conditions all convey higher risk to COVID-19 infections.

ACE-2, which binds to SARS-Cov-2 and allows the virus to enter human cells is also located in organs and tissues involved in glucose metabolism. Is there solid evidence that virus after entering tissues may cause multiple and complex impairment of glucose metabolism?

The actual mechanism as to why COVID-19 may cause diabetes is as yet unknown.

However, several possibilities exist. Firstly, COVID-19 is a very destructive and cunning virus and causes terrible damage to tissues, including the lungs and pancreas.

A new study just published showed that in miniature lab-grown pancreas, and other cells such as liver, made using human stem cells, COVID-19 caused destruction of the pancreas beta cells that produce insulin.

It is possible that the virus causes disruption of the cells by disrupting cellular metabolism. This is possibly the way it brings about new-onset diabetes. ACE-2 exists in high concentration in the lung as this also explains the terrible lung side effects of COVID-19 infections.

Can COVID-19 lead to a new mechanism of diabetes? Probably a new form of diabetes or a new form of disease?

The COVID-19 virus has only been with us for about 5 months and there is a huge amount that we still must learn about its cunning and devastating ways. The purpose of the Global COVIDIAB Diabetes Registry, a joint initiative of Monash University in Australia, and King’s College London is to gain a much better understanding of how common is the appearance of COVID-19 related diabetes, what form does it take be it type 1 or type 2 or a new form, and how common are the complications that we already know e.g. diabetic keto-acidosis, hyperosmolar coma and high insulin requirements are causing high rates of ill health and mortality worldwide. The knowledge gained will aid our understanding for developing strategies to prevent and treat this terrible virus that has caused destruction globally.

Diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in India. According to a recent study, sugar levels of diabetic persons increased by 20 per cent during nationwide lockdown in India to contain COVID-19 outbreak. Even after lockdown was lifted, many people are confined within their home. Do you think lack of physical activity will create more problems for diabetics?

My own major research has been on studying populations with high rates of diabetes, including ethnic Indian communities including India, Mauritius, and Fiji so I am very well aware of this. It is now well established that along with diabetes, that associated poor metabolic control of their diabetes places these people at the highest risk for COVID infection and its devastating complications and the associated morbidity and mortality. And these communities have high prevalence of heart disease as well.

Lockdown not only has deleterious effects on metabolic control of the diabetes through reduced opportunities for exercise to be protective serious consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection, lockdown usually results in disruption of the regular medical care and the regular monitoring of metabolic control. This may also be partly due to the stress and poor compliance, or inability to afford their medications such as insulin. It may also be compounded by inability to access the care during the pandemic. Nevertheless, we now know that poor metabolic control heightens their risk as described above.

You have said diabetes is itself a pandemic just like Covid-19, and the two pandemics could be clashing. How could governments address this problem?

These are “The Times of COVID-19”. Most nations of the world were totally unprepared for a pandemic of this magnitude. They underestimated its potential impact and the destructive nature of the viral infection. This should prompt all countries to upgrade their guidelines to take into account the lessons learnt on infection control including training of staff specialising in infectious diseases and improved public education and taking their communities into their confidence about the terrible nature of COVID-19. The risks of COVID-19 infection need a much higher priority in the general community, particularly for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiac conditions.

Governments are faced with chronic diseases (NCDs) like diabetes and communicable diseases (CDs) like viral and enteric diseases and TB. In general WHO gives the highest priority to communicable diseases and much less attention and funding to chronic diseases like diabetes (I was an adviser to WHO for many years (about 30) on diabetes and obesity and it was very frustrating to deal with this situation).

This attitude to diabetes, for example, has a flow down effect so that diabetes funding in countries by governments, rich and poor, suffered and was insufficient.

So now we have a COVID-19 pandemic and who are those at highest risk, yes people with diabetes and other NCDs, it is very important that now the two, Diabetes and COVID-19 are clashing face-to-face. This is a major issue that WHO and national governments have to face with equal priority’

Stressed people suffering from diabetes run a greater risk of poor blood glucose levels, what do you suggest to these people?

As mentioned in the answer above, stress is an important factor in upsetting the blood sugar (metabolic) control of diabetes. Additive to this is poor compliance with medications and diet. These and potential associated comorbidities due to other chronic conditions are part of the dynamic dynamite mixture.

The American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and the European biotechnology company BioNTech SE have conducted an experimental trial of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate and found it to be safe, well-tolerated, and capable of generating antibodies in the patients.

The study, which is yet to be peer-reviewed, describes the preliminary clinical data for the candidate vaccine -- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA), BNT162b1.

It said the amount of antibodies produced in participants after they received two shots of the vaccine candidate was greater than that reported in patients receiving convalescent plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients.

"I was glad to see Pfizer put up their phase 1 trial data today. Virus neutralizing antibody titers achieved after two doses are greater than convalescent antibody titers," tweeted Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist from Baylor College of Medicine in the US, who was unrelated to the study.

Researchers, including those from New York University in the US, who were involved in the study, said the candidate vaccine enables human cells to produce an optimised version of the receptor binding domain (RBD) antigen -- a part of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 which it uses to gain entry into human cells.

"Robust immunogenicity was observed after vaccination with BNT162b1," the scientists noted in the study.

They said the program is evaluating at least four experimental vaccines, each of which represents a unique combination of mRNA format and target component of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Based on the study's findings, they said BNT162b1 could be administered in a quantity that was well tolerated, potentially generating a dose dependent production of immune system molecules in the patients.

The research noted that patients treated with the vaccine candidate produced nearly 1.8 to 2.8 fold greater levels of RBD-binding antibodies that could neutralise SARS-CoV-2.

"We are encouraged by the clinical data of BNT162b1, one of four mRNA constructs we are evaluating clinically, and for which we have positive, preliminary, topline findings," said Kathrin U. Jansen, study co-author and Senior Vice President and Head of Vaccine Research & Development, Pfizer.

"We look forward to publishing our clinical data in a peer-reviewed journal as quickly as possible," Jansen said.

According to Ugur Sahin, CEO and Co-founder of BioNTech, and another co-author of the study, the preliminary data are encouraging as they provide an initial signal that BNT162b1 is able to produce neutralising antibody responses in humans.

He said the immune response observed in the patients treated with the experimental vaccine are at, or above, the levels observed from convalescent sera, adding that it does so at "relatively low dose levels."

"We look forward to providing further data updates on BNT162b1," Sahin said.

According to a statement from Pfizer, the initial part of the study included 45 healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age.

It said the priliminary data for BNT162b1 was evaluated in 24 subjects who received two injections of 10 microgrammes ( g) and 30 g -- 12 subjects who received a single injection of 100 g, and 9 subjects who received two doses of a dummy vaccine.

The study noted that participants received two doses, 21 days apart, of placebo, 10 g or 30 g of BNT162b1, or received a single dose of 100 g of the vaccine candidate.

According to the scientists, the highest neutralising concentrations of antibodies were observed seven days after the second dose of 10 g, or 30 g on day 28 after vaccination.

They said the neutralising concentrations were 1.8- and 2.8-times that observed in a panel of 38 blood samples from people who had contracted the virus.

In all 24 subjects who received two vaccinations at 10 g and 30 g dose levels, elevation of RBD-binding antibody concentrations was observed after the second injection, the study noted.

It said these concentrations are 8- and 46.3-times the concentration seen in a panel of 38 blood samples from those infected with the novel coronavirus.

At the 10 g or 30 g dose levels, the scientists said adverse reactions, including low grade fever, were more common after the second dose than the first dose.

According to Pfizer, local reactions and systemic events after injection with 10 g and 30 g of BNT162b1 were "dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient."

It said the most commonly reported local reaction was injection site pain, which was mild to moderate, except in one of 12 subjects who received a 100 g dose, which was severe.

The study noted that there was no serious adverse events reported by the patients.

Citing the limitations of the research, the scientists said the immunity generated in the participants in the form of the T cells and B cells of their immune system, and the level of immunity needed to protect one from COVID-19 are unknown.

With these preliminary data, along with additional data being generated, Pfizer noted in the statement that the two companies will determine a dose level, and select among multiple vaccine candidates to seek to progress to a large, global safety and efficacy trial, which may involve up to 30,000 healthy participants if regulatory approval to proceed is received.

Washington D.C., May 5: Working from home has become the new normal ever since the outbreak of coronavirus and in today's time the work duties can be easily dealt with by means of mobile devices at home.

However, this easy use of technology, mobile devices for that matter, has the potential to blur the fine line between work and the other daily life routines.

But, contrary to the belief, a study at the University of Jyvaskyla reveals that the mixing of work and other daily life routines may have more benefits than previously assumed, and points to the importance of boundary-spanning communication.

A smartphone enables phone calls, email, and file transfers from the comfort of home. The study shows that there may be more effective ways to maximise the benefits of smartphone use, without diminishing employees' flexibility and the use of these technologies.

"People often forget to talk about positive effects, such as autonomy and freedom the employees gain when they have the flexibility to schedule their work," said Postdoctoral Researcher Ward van Zoonen from JYU, who with his colleagues examined the use of smartphones for work matters outside working hours.

The study paid special attention to the benefits of talking about domestic matters with the immediate supervisor outside the working hours given to an employee.

"This reduces the conflict between work and other life," van Zoonen said.

"If people in an organisation strive for more dialogue between employees' different life domains, it is possible to create a functional environment where people can talk about different matters."

The research findings show that when employees communicate across boundaries and talk at work about their life in other respects, they can receive new kinds of support and understanding from their immediate supervisor.

"This kind of communication creates a low threshold for contacting one's supervisor, which helps employees build a balance between the different domains of their lives and strengthens their organisational identification," said Professor Anu Sivunen describing the findings.

This means that tight working time restrictions to protect employees might not be beneficial after all, if they hinder reaching the positive results indicated in this research.

For the study, a survey was taken of 367 employees who were asked questions such as -- how much they talk about their work with their family, and how much they talk about their family with their immediate supervisor.

"Both supervisors and their employees answered the surveys, and the study actually focused on their mutual communication," Sivunen said.

"Usually people at workplaces are interested in how communication within the work community is succeeding. It is often forgotten how an immediate supervisor can take an employer's other life into account and thereby help the employee gain work-related benefits."

"Communication with one's immediate supervisor during flexible working hours, also on matters other than work, could ease the daily lives of many employees if they could share the possible challenges of their family life or free time with their supervisor in these settings," Sivunen added.

According to the study, such a practice could make the supervisor aware of the employee's situation as he/she works from home and the related impacts on their work performances.