
Diabetes mellitus (DM) has a high incidence of comorbidities among patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The elevated prevalence of DM in the world population makes it a significant risk factor because diabetic individuals appear to be prone to clinical complications and have increased mortality rates. Here, we review the possible underlying mechanisms involved in DM that led to worse outcomes in COVID-19. The impacts of hyperglycemia side effects, secondary comorbidities, weakened innate and adaptive immunity, chronic inflammation, and poor nutritional status, commonly present in DM, are discussed. The role of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor and its polymorphic variations on higher binding affinity to facilitate viral uptake in people with DM were also considered. Clinical differences between individuals with type 1 DM and type 2 DM affected by COVID-19 and the potential diabetogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection were addressed.
Citation: María D Figueroa-Pizano, Alma C Campa-Mada, Elizabeth Carvajal-Millan, Karla G Martinez-Robinson, Agustin Rascon Chu. The underlying mechanisms for severe COVID-19 progression in people with diabetes mellitus: a critical review[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2021, 8(4): 720-742. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2021057
[1] | Muhammad Shahid Iqbal, Muhammad Nauman Ahmad, Nynke Hofstra . The Relationship between Hydro-Climatic Variables and E. coli Concentrations in Surface and Drinking Water of the Kabul River Basin in Pakistan. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(5): 690-708. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.5.690 |
[2] | Alejandra S. Coronel, Susana R. Feldman, Emliano Jozami, Kehoe Facundo, Rubén D. Piacentini, Marielle Dubbeling, Francisco J. Escobedo . Effects of urban green areas on air temperature in a medium-sized Argentinian city. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 803-826. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.803 |
[3] | Kamonrat Suphawan, Kuntalee Chaisee . Gaussian process regression for predicting water quality index: A case study on Ping River basin, Thailand. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(3): 268-282. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021018 |
[4] | Alessio Russo, Francisco J Escobedo, Stefan Zerbe . Quantifying the local-scale ecosystem services provided by urban treed streetscapes in Bolzano, Italy. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 58-76. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.58 |
[5] | John R. Christy . Examination of Extreme Rainfall Events in Two Regions of the United States since the 19th Century. AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(2): 109-126. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.2.109 |
[6] | Kathleen D Reinhardt, Wirdateti, K.AI. Nekaris . Climate-mediated activity of the Javan Slow Loris, Nycticebus javanicus. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(2): 249-260. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.2.249 |
[7] | N. Naveena, G. Ch. Satyanarayana, A. Dharma Raju, K Sivasankara Rao, N. Umakanth . Spatial and statistical characteristics of heat waves impacting India. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(2): 117-134. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021009 |
[8] | Tewodros Woldemariam Tesfaye, C.T. Dhanya, A.K. Gosain . Evaluation of ERA-Interim, MERRA, NCEP-DOE R2 and CFSR Reanalysis precipitation Data using Gauge Observation over Ethiopia for a period of 33 years. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(4): 596-620. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.4.596 |
[9] | Marta Rodrigues, Henrique Queiroga, Anabela Oliveira, Vanda Brotas, Maria D. Manso . Climatic and anthropogenic factors driving water quality variability in a shallow coastal lagoon (Aveiro lagoon, Portugal): 1985–2010 data analysis. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 673-696. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.673 |
[10] | Dong Chen, Marcus Thatcher, Xiaoming Wang, Guy Barnett, Anthony Kachenko, Robert Prince . Summer cooling potential of urban vegetation—a modeling study for Melbourne, Australia. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 648-667. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.648 |
Diabetes mellitus (DM) has a high incidence of comorbidities among patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The elevated prevalence of DM in the world population makes it a significant risk factor because diabetic individuals appear to be prone to clinical complications and have increased mortality rates. Here, we review the possible underlying mechanisms involved in DM that led to worse outcomes in COVID-19. The impacts of hyperglycemia side effects, secondary comorbidities, weakened innate and adaptive immunity, chronic inflammation, and poor nutritional status, commonly present in DM, are discussed. The role of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor and its polymorphic variations on higher binding affinity to facilitate viral uptake in people with DM were also considered. Clinical differences between individuals with type 1 DM and type 2 DM affected by COVID-19 and the potential diabetogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection were addressed.
Diabetes mellitus;
Coronavirus disease 2019;
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus;
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2;
Research Center for Food and Development;
World Health Organization;
Center for Systems Science and Engineering;
Middle East respiratory syndrome;
Intensive care unit;
Angiotensin-converting enzyme 1;
Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2;
ACE inhibitors;
Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system;
Angiotensin-receptor blockers;
glycosylated hemoglobin;
Reactive oxygen species;
Cluster of differentiation 4+;
Cluster of differentiation 8+;
Tumor necrosis factor-α;
Interleukin;
C-reactive protein;
Interferon-ϒ;
Chest computed tomography;
Lactate dehydrogenase levels;
Receptor-binding domain;
Ribonucleic acid;
Desoxyribonucleic acid;
Single nucleotide polymorphisms;
Coronary heart disease;
Body mass index;
Diabetic ketoacidosis;
transmembrane serine protease 2
An increase of the mean surface air temperature (SAT) presents the most prominent evidence of the present-day climate change (climate warming) both on global and local scales [1,2,3,4]. However, climate changes manifest themselves not only in the evolution of mean climate characteristics, but also in the changes of the climate variability and in the occurrence of climate extremes. Potential intensification of the anthropogenic forcing influences thus not only the climate state but becomes involved in the variability and instability of weather and climate. The precise knowledge of the air temperature variability and of the frequency of the occurrences of temperature extremes may be to some degree even more crucial than the proper impact of the gradual increase of the mean air temperature [5,6,7]. Especially the sudden temperature extremes can trigger subsequent climatic and natural events that consequently endanger various sectors of life (e.g. strongly variable precipitation, floods, rising sea level, warmer water temperatures, effect on plant development, etc.). All these events have serious consequences on human every-day-life and on the difficulty of the society adaptation to the unexpected intense weather changes [8].
In the last dozen years numerous investigations focused on the ongoing changes in air temperature variability on different time scales [9,10,11]. Previously such studies were based on the global gridded SAT data sets. However, in the last two or three decades the warming trend and the related climatic changes have become so strong that they become detectable in many local weather stations. The climate change studies at the regional level provide more detailed picture as they facilitate the possibility to understand and compare the local specific manifestations [12,13,14,15]. While the regionally detected warming trends are generally similar, the temperature variability exhibits a more diverse pattern with extensive regions with either positive and/or negative climate variability trends. E.g. Xu et al. [15] analyzed the variability of different daily climatic indices (including air temperatures) using ~50-years long high spatial resolution data set in China and found that the daily variability of climate was higher in North China than in South China. On the other hand, Huntingford et al. [16] argued for no increase in global temperature variability even if annual temperature variations show noticeable geographical variations. Scale differences (annual, seasonal, daily) and especially methodological differences between various studies represent additional problem because some of the obtained results are difficult to be compared. Some researchers perform the detection of variability by generally simple statistics like comparing the mean values and their variance [14,17,18], while others prefer more advanced statistical methods, like the N-point change method [19,20,21] or the fractal dimensional analysis [15]. Geographical complexity of the variability pattern and the methodological differences in its detection have produced ongoing serious debates in the interpretation of the results [22] but have inspired numerical research attempts for a broader variability assessment all over the world.
In the present work we have tried to investigate the SAT variability in the temperature-time series data obtained at the observation station Prague-Sporilov (the Czech Republic) in years 2003–2016. We continue the initial similar studies which focused on temperature record 1994–2001. We described that climate systems are variable on all time scales and that their evolution could be better understood when the insight was aimed not only on the changes in mean characteristics, but the climate variability and climate extremes were considered [20]. The interpretation of the Sporilov data were completed and compared with the results of the long-term observation of the Prague Klementinum station to confirm the Prague-Sporilov results.
Daily Average Temperatures (DAT) were calculated from the recorded SAT series measured at 2 m height at the Geothermal Climate Change Observatory (GCCO) Sporilov, Prague (50°02.43' N, 14°28.54x E, 275 m a.s.l.). The experiment started in 1992 when the GCCO was built as a part of the long-term paleoclimate project to understand the mechanism of the downward propagation of the ground surface temperature signal into shallow subsurface [23,24,25]. The DAT used here are a part of observational material covering the time interval 2003–2016 (Figure 1) and the present interpretation continues the previous similar studies [20]. Original data were recorded by a 16-channel data logger M4016 [26]; the proper temperature sensor (platinum Pt1000, four-wire mode) located in a waterproof tube is placed on the top of the 2 m long rod. The 5-minutes original input data were stored and hourly means computed to interpret daily variations and further computed daily means when describing the inter-annual variation patterns. Battery failures, occasional sensor failures, and unstable voltage inputs in the data logger unfortunately disrupted the compactness of the registration record. General data coverage over the whole registration period varied between 96 and 97%. No serious attempt can be made to statistically improve the observed 5-min data series by infilling the existing gaps. However, the entire duration of the whole 14-year-long observational interval and its 96% data coverage is a certain guarantee to identify the obtained variability results. In contrast to the previous work [20], when the variability was investigated in the temperature time series measured between 1994–2001 and the calculation was performed for surface (z = 0 m) air temperatures data averaged for 6-hour and for 24-hour intervals, now we preferred air temperature at 2 m height and have focused on daily means, to be able to compare the GCCO-Sporilov results with the data from the Prague-Klementinum record (see further). The GCCO-site, situated at the campus of the Institute of Geophysics, is located on the top of the local gentle crest framing the southern periphery of Prague. The area can be characterized as a surviving island of typical suburban houses, with a plenty of greenery, on the outskirts of the quickly expanding robust development of the growing city.
The Klementinum station (50°05.20' N, 14°24.98' E, 191 m a.s.l.) is the oldest Czech meteorological observatory, with the systematic air temperature measurements started in 1775 [27]. Contrary to Sporilov site, the station is located in the very downtown of Prague and may serve to demonstrate the influence of the urban environment. Even when in the past its instrumentation underwent several modifications, the almost 250-year-long observational record presents valuable scientific material. Here for practical purpose we have analyzed only the comparable time interval as provided the Sporilov station, namely years 2003–2016 (Figure 2), and added few more findings analyzing longer time spans 1900–2016 and 1970–2016. In addition to the daily averaged temperatures (DAT) the results include also the daily maximum Tmax and daily minimum Tmin temperatures.
Numerous observations have shown that during the second half of the 20th century the mean SAT has been increasing on daily, monthly and annual scales overall in Europe [1,28,29] and that since the late 1970s the mean temperature increase has been substantially accelerated. This phenomenon is observable not only in the SAT series themselves but on the seasonal scales and is especially evident in the summer temperatures [30]. Figure 3 shows seasonal linear trends calculated for the Prague-Sporilov temperature series, similar calculations were done for the Klementinum station. It is interesting to mention that the most intensive warming always corresponds to the winter season. The spring and summer warming are approx. two-three times lower and the lowest warming rate for Sporilov corresponds to the fall season (more than an order lower than the winter). The difference between summer and winter temperatures reduces the decrease of climate variability on the annual scale and produces a shift in the duration of the individual seasons (spring comes earlier and cold weather/frosts are arriving later in the fall). Table 1 summarizes the parameters of the linear trends calculated for the interval 2003–2016 of both investigated stations. As seen, Klementinum daily air temperature averages are by about 0.5 to 1 K higher that Sporilov averages (the fact that can be attributed to the urban heat island effect, UHI), but the Sporilov warming rate is slightly higher.
Data | Mean temperature (deg.C) | Warming (K/decade) |
Sporilov | ||
Daily temp. | 10.61 ± 0.12 | 1.16 ± 0.29 |
Spring temp. | 10.64 | 0.93 |
Summer temp. | 20.04 | 0.83 |
Fall temp. | 10.31 | 0.11 |
Winter temp. | 1.28 | 2.00 |
Klementinum | ||
Daily temp. | 11.49 ± 0.11 | 0.97 ± 0.28 |
Spring temp. | 11.42 | 0.45 |
Summer temp. | 20.84 | 0.30 |
Fall temp. | 11.27 | 0.44 |
Winter temp. | 2.25 | 1.83 |
Tmax | 15.29 ± 0.13 | 0.90 ± 0.32 |
Tmin | 7.94 ± 0.10 | 1.16 ± 0.25 |
The UHI can noticeably affect the measured air temperatures (both their trends and fluctuations) and its intensity need not be constant, but depends on various factors related to town development dynamics, such as population and building growth, increasing heat production, energy consumption, etc. Detailed investigations of the UHI effect for the Prague-Klementinum station were performed [31,32]. The former work analyzed daily mean temperatures measured between 1921–1995 at 17 rural stations located within 40 km range from Prague-Klementinum. The later work was based on the daily minimum temperatures measured during 1961–1990 at 3 stations situated in the 50 km neighbourhood of the Klementinum station. The Prague UHI intensity has shown progressive intensification since 1922 (especially from mid 40's to mid 60's), and certain stagnation after 60s. The trend was practically zero between 1980–1995. The highest daily mean temperature increase was observed in winter and spring (0.06 K/decade) and the smallest, practically insignificant (0.01 K/decade) in summer. The annual warming was ~0.05 K/decade. The UHI increase is thus 20–25 times lower than the air temperature warming trends presented in Table 1 and do not exceed the uncertainty of warming trend. The elimination of the UHI effect from the warming trends will not markedly change the observed linear trends. This is clearly visible in Figure 5 [32]), where measured temperatures and temperatures reduced by the intensification of the UHI according to the linear trend in 1922–1995 practically coincide. The UHI intensification trend for the daily minimum temperatures is somewhat higher than calculated for daily mean temperatures (0.12 K/decade within 1961–1990 period [31]). However, it is still an order of magnitude lower than that presented in Table 1 and is smaller than the uncertainty of calculated warming trend.
The temperature trends exhibit similar patterns on the annual scale. Figure 4 shows annual mean temperatures as well as maximum (hottest day) and minimum (coldest day) daily temperatures for the period 2003–2016 at the Sporilov station. The range of annual daily temperature variations fluctuates between 32.3–44.0 K. Positive/warming trends are characteristic for all three variables. However, an increase of annual coldest day temperature is ~1.5 times faster than the temperature of the annual hottest day. It hints that the climate faster becomes less cold rather than getting warmer. Similar conclusion is presented in the work by Alexander et al. [33].
Table 2 presents similar results related to several longer periods calculated for the Klementinum station. Warming trends and average daily temperatures are growing with time and this growth increased sharply in the last few decades. The present mean temperature has increased by 3.2 K compared with year 1900, when one third of this increase occurred since year 2000. It may be interesting to mention that according to the National Climate Assessment (NCA) the average temperature on the USA territory has increased by 1.3–1.9 K since 1895 and most of this increase is also due to the last couple decades [34]. The observed Klementinum temperature increase is thus 1.7 times greater. Such increase is in a good agreement with similar studies in Western Europe where last few decades have been getting warmer faster than the global average and far stronger than predicted by the standard models based on the anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases [12,35,36].
Period | 1900–1950 | 1950–2000 | 2000–2016 |
DAT | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 9.47 ± 0.06 | 10.10 ± 0.06 | 11.47 ± 0.10 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.159 ± 0.042 | 0.267 ± 0.041 | 0.607 ± 0.209 |
Tmax | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 13.10 ± 0.07 | 13.83 ± 0.08 | 15.26 ± 0.12 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.334 ± 0.047 | 0.221 ± 0.047 | 0.625 ± 0.240 |
Tmin | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 5.97 ± 0.05 | 6.47 ± 0.05 | 7.92 ± 0.09 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.003 ± 0.038 | 0.296 ± 0.036 | 0.728 ± 0.184 |
Both daily minimum and daily maximum temperatures have been increasing with time as well. The calculated trends are generally similar for mean, maximum and minimum temperatures and exhibit an increase on both monthly and annual scales. The magnitudes of both trends are comparable with the rate of the daily average temperature warming. Noticeable feature is that minimum daily temperatures (Tmin) increase approx. 30% faster than daily maxima (Tmax). This result in a progressive decrease of the diurnal temperature range (DTR), and decrease in the intra-day variability and daily temperatures have been getting warmer. The observed evidence, namely a faster increase in the diurnal minimum temperature compared with the diurnal maximum temperature in the last 50 years leading to a decrease in the DTR is consistent with the mean global trend of the DTR reducing [37,38,39]. It should be stressed, however, that the DTR trend course is not stable, but to some degree variable and may incorporate temporally rate variation (slowdown) or even reversals to the negative trend in recent decades [40].
The processes responsible for the DTR decrease are still poorly apparent as well as the role of the potential anthropogenic forcing. Some authors have argued that shortwave radiation could have a strong and sufficiently homogeneous effect to change DTR on a global scale [41,42]. Anyhow, as shown above, the decreasing DTR trend represents an exact and easily identifiable characteristic of the recent climate change, and its detection in the forcing mechanisms of the present-day climate change (in particular in its potential anthropogenic component) may be important.
Variability indicates the degree of fluctuation and uncertainty of the temperature change process. One of the remarkable aspects of the global warming is the fact that the global mean temperature (SAT) increase may be accompanied by certain temperature variability decrease. Climate simulations studies predict not only climate warming, but also a general decrease in climate variability [19,43,44]. It was recognized that the variability decreases on average, it was also pointed out that these trends are roughly constant or linear in time. The variability trend may be likewise frequency dependent [20].
There are several ways to detect variability changes. Here we used so-called N-point change method introduced in detail earlier [20,21]. The measured data series were converted into temperature anomalies by means of detrending and removing the annual wave. Figure 5 presents variability patterns calculated for the daily temperature averages for both Prague-Sporilov site and Klementinum station for the 2003–2016 period. The variability shows an insignificant decreasing trend of −0.003 K/yr that is by an order of magnitude lower than the value −0.038 ± 0.002 K/yr obtained earlier for this site for the 1994–2001 period [20]. The above Sporilov variability trends are quite similar to the variability trends for the Prague-Klementinum data, namely −0.019 K/yr and/or −0.005 K/yr for the 1994–2001 and 2003–2016 period, respectively. Figure 6 and Table 3 summarizes the variability trends calculated from the Prague-Klementinum data for the 10-years intervals within 1971–2016 period. As seen, all trends are negative (variability decreases) and this decrease accelerates with time. This decrease was practically negligible in the beginning of the studied period and has grown by more than two orders of magnitude within last about 5 decades.
Time interval | Mean (K) | Slope (K/decade) |
1971.1.1–1980.12.31 | 1.70 | -0.001 |
1981.1.1–1990.12.31 | 1.808 | -0.044 |
1991.1.1–2000.12.31 | 1.826 | -0.079 |
2001.1.1–2010.12.31 | 1.742 | -0.13 |
2011.1.1–2016.12.31 | 1.812 | -0.32 |
The detected decreasing trend exists only on an average. Its persistency often breaks off both in the value as well as in the sign of the variability change. On the shorter time scales the calculated slope value strongly depends on the length and the beginning of an investigated time interval. The positive slope values were obtained for the Prague-Sporilov data for the spring-summer time intervals in year 2003 and above all in year 2015. Noticeable changes in the variability generally coincided with more pronounced temperature extremes. E.g., two reversals in the variability change mentioned above can be attributed to the warming occurred due to record-breaking European heat waves [36,45].
The variability trends calculated for data measured at both Sporilov and Klementinum sites exhibit an insignificant decrease within the 2003–2016 time interval. However, it should be emphasized, that such trend corresponds to the calculated value only when calculated for the whole interval as entirety. This fact may lose its validity when calculation is applied to another time section (Figure 7). On a shorter time scale the calculated slope value may strongly depend on the length and the beginning of the selected time interval. In our case, positive slope values were obtained for the 2003 spring-summer time interval and especially for the 2015 summer. Such noticeable changes in the variability generally coincide with pronounced temperature extremes. For example, the two above mentioned reversals in the variability change can be undoubtedly attributed to the periods of a sequence of exceptionally hot days (European heat waves) [36,45].
1. The record breaking European temperature heat wave occurred in the summer of 2003 (approx. from June to mid-August), when temperatures were about 20–30 percent above average. It has affected much of Western Europe, but was generally concentrated in England, France and Spain. Temperatures were as high as 47 ℃ in the south of Portugal and the heat wave had extremely hard human consequences [46,47].
2. An unusually strong and prolonged heat waves occurred across Europe from late June to mid-September 2015 [48]. The record temperatures above 40 ℃ have been recorded in several locations (the Mediterranean coast, south-western, central and south-eastern Europe; see e.g. [49]). The maximum daily temperatures approached to about 37 ℃ during both 2003 and 2015 heat waves in Prague.
The past 2–3 decades of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century have been characterized not only by the global temperature increase, but also by an increased frequency of extreme events such as heat/cold waves, heavy rainfall and floods, droughts, etc. Numerous climatic models predict more frequent occurrence of extreme events [50]. An increased occurrence of weather extremes has acquired a high social resonance that initiated an intensive research activity to quantify the variability, frequency and possible evolution of observed extreme events. For example, Nicholls [51] reported, that extreme weather values may work as good indicators of coming climate changes. Weather extremes are relatively rare; a proper assessing of their occurrence creates certain problems. The most frequently used methods are based on probability characteristics and the counts of days exceeding a certain specified threshold value. To not engage only with a few individual events, a list of indices for extreme temperature phenomena has been worked out in the frames by the CLIVAR project of the World Climate Research Program [52]. The guidelines for the recommended temperature-based CLIVAR indices were presented by Klein Tank [53].
Numerous evidences support that most global land areas have experienced significant warming of both maximum and minimum temperature extremes during at least the second half of the 20th Century. Changes in the occurrence of cold and warm days are not unambiguous. On the whole, rapid warming observed in the last decades was accompanied by increases in summer temperature extremes over Western Europe while the number of unusually cold days has generally decreased [54]. The IPCC AR4 Climate Model calculations have shown that since the middle of the 20th Century the indices of cold extremes had likely decreased and indices of warm extremes increased at the most of global land areas [55]. Similar conclusions were presented in the review work by Meehl et al.[9]. Number of days with unusually cold winter temperatures (particularly extremely cold nights) became less common. This phenomenon is consistent with the general climate warming. In the first approximation the observed trends in the SAT extremes are often interpreted as a simple shift of the total temperature distribution towards higher temperatures [56].
On the other hand, the trends of the extreme indices based on 60 European weather stations located within the 40–70°N zone stretching from Great Britain to Russia have very local character [57,58]. It was also shown that in spite of the fact that the individual extremely cold months (ECM) represent a frequent phenomenon in Europe, the winter ECMs were observed only at 10 of all investigated weather stations within the 1951–2000 yr period and only at 25 and 27 stations during 2001–2006 and 2007–2011 periods, respectively. The lowest number of ECMs occurred in the 1991–2000 decade, but their frequency and the territorial extent has started to increase since the beginning of the 21th century [57].
Europe experienced almost similar number of severe winters and the heat waves in the last decades. There were 11 extremely cold winters (ECW) during 1951/52–1979/80 period and another 7 ECWs during 1980/81–2009/2010 interval (the number of ECWs somewhat diminished, but not significantly [58]. At the same periods, the numbers of heat waves occurring in Europe were 5 and 9, respectively [59]. The most recent European heat wave occurred on summer 2015, in Central Europe it started at the end of July and continued during the first ten days of August.
As Prague belongs to the temperate climate zone, unusually warm as well as unusually cold days are rare. Changes in climate variability and extremes can be visualized in relation to changes in the probability distribution. Figure 8 shows the probability distribution of the temperature excess values (i.e. the differences between detrended observed temperature data and the Fourier sinusoidal representation applied on Sporilov 2003–2016 record). While the previously investigated 1994–2001 data exhibited a right skewed distribution and a more heavy right tail [20], the 2003–2016 probability distribution is close to the normal (Gaussian) distribution. A prominent feature of the 1994–2001 temperature record was the prevalence of extremes in warm seasons, while the number of cold season extremes was practically insignificant. The present disappearance of the right skewness and the shift to the normal distribution can be explained by the increase of cold extremes. The minimal temperature anomaly was a little less than −10 K during 1994–2001 period and the anomaly values lower or equal to −10 K occurred only once for the investigated 8 years. During 2003–2016 period the minimal anomaly equals already to −15.6 K and the number of days with the values equal or lower than −10 K occurred already 29 times. Similar tendency can be observed at the Prague-Klementinum station (Table 4), the number of both warm and cold extremes increases with time; however the number of cold extremes is growing faster. While the A2/A1 relation in seventh years was ~ 6, in the last decade it fell to ~3.
Period | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2007–2016 |
A1 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
A2 | 19 | 24 | 32 |
While the increase of number and the growth of the intensity of warm extremes is a general European phenomenon and can be attributed to the global warming trend and the corresponding increase of the hot days (>25 ℃), the reasons for the growth of cold extremes are so far not clear and need further explanation. The evolution of the number of cold extremes has a local character; Spinoni et al. [60] have investigated the heat and the cold waves in the Carpathian Region and have described different spatial patterns of heat and cold waves. While heat wave events exhibit a general increase in all investigated parameters, cold wave events show a decrease in the area west to the Carpathians and an increase in the area north–east to the Carpathians. In the south Italian high-altitude region Capozzi and Budillon [61] revealed a strong and significant positive trend in the last 40 years in heat waves frequency, intensity and duration, while cold wave events have exhibited a significant and positive trend only in their intensity.
For further investigations we have used the CLIVAR-recommended percentile-based and the absolute temperature indices. The four temperature percentile indices consider the coldest and warmest deciles for both maximum and minimum temperatures to evaluate the degree of extremes changing. Absolute indices represent maximum or minimum values within the season or within the year and reflect the longer time scale processes. Table 5 represents the CLIVAR-recommended indices based on the 10th and 90th percentiles of maximum and minimum daily temperatures recorded at Prague-Klementinum station. The 10th percentile is a temperature value such that at least 10% of the observations is less or equal to this value, while the rest of observations is greater than or equal to this value. Below we used the following abbreviations: Tmin 10p–Tmin below 10th percentile, Tmax 10p–Tmax below 10th percentile, Tmin 90p–Tmin above 90th percentile, Tmax 90p–Tmax above 90th percentile. The values lower than Tmin10p and/or Tmax10p usually arise at cold nights and cold days, while the values surpassing Tmin90p and Tmax90p are characteristic for the warm nights and warm days, respectively [33,60].
Interval (years) | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2011–2016 |
Tmin10p | -1, 4 | -1, 9 | -0, 2 |
Tmin90p | 15, 2 | 17, 1 | 17, 2 |
Tmax10p | 2, 6 | 2, 2 | 4 |
Tmax90p | 25 | 27, 5 | 27, 9 |
As seen, all calculated percentiles exhibit significant warming since at least the mid of the 20th century. The permanent warming is characteristic for both cold nights and cold days. The warming characteristic for warm nights and warm days has slowed down or practically stopped in the first two decades of the 21th century. Similar phenomenon is characteristic for the daily maximum temperatures. The maximum temperature observed in the 1971–1980 interval was 34.7 ℃, while in the last two intervals it equals to 37.3 and 37.6 º C, respectively. It is of interest, that at the present time such heat and/or cold extremes are short and rare in the temperate climate zone and can be regarded as synoptic rather than climatic events, unlikely they can seriously distort the characteristic pattern.
Absolute indices represent maximum or minimum values within a given time interval. They include maximum daily maximum temperature (TXx), maximum daily minimum temperature (TNx), minimum daily maximum temperature (TXn), minimum daily minimum temperature (TNn). The index TXx can be generally attributed to extremely warm day and TXn to the coldest day, while the TNn index corresponds to extremely cold night and TNx to the warmest night [62,63]. In the present work we calculated the absolute indices from maximum and minimum daily temperatures measured at the Klementinum Observatory. Table 6 summarizes the indices calculated for the 10-years long intervals.
Time interval | TXx | TXn | TNx | TNn |
1971–1980 | 34.7 | -11.0 | 22.6 | -17.3 |
1981–1990 | 37.8 | -14.3 | 22.2 | -20.2 |
1991–2000 | 36.1 | -10.6 | 23.0 | -19.8 |
2001–2010 | 37.3 | -9.3 | 23.8 | -14.8 |
2011–2016 | 37.6 | -8.7 | 24.0 | -17.1 |
The absolute temperature indices exhibit a similar growing pattern as other investigated indices. The maximum daily maximum temperature (TXx) increased by nearly 3 K (the hottest days became hotter) which represents the greatest change in the absolute temperature indices. Similar increase was obtained for the most of investigated regions on the global scale [62,64]. An interesting local feature is that the most of the temperature increase occurred after 1980 and further has significantly slowed down. Similar, but somewhat weaker, warming are found for coldest days (TXn) and warmest nights (TNx), the process which is characteristic over the most of Europe [64].
The TNn index variations exhibit certain unusual regional detail. Donat et al. [64] have investigated the behavior of the absolute indices on the global scale and found that the warming trends are generally stronger for the coldest night temperatures than for indices calculated for warmest days. Significant increase of the TNn values was detected at the 70% of the grid boxes from 1951 to 2010, while significant decrease was found only in 3% of investigated data. The TNn increase was particularly strong over large parts of Asia. Globally averaged TNn temperature has increased by about 3 K in the last 1951–2010 period. According to Alexander et al. [33] the minimum daily minimum temperature (TNn) increased by ~ 5 K between 1951 and 2003 that represents the greatest change in the absolute temperature indices. However above authors have noted that this growth is dominated by the very large negative anomalies in the 1950s when there was increased sampling uncertainty. Our TNn indices show up to ~ 3–5 K differences between neighboring decadal values, but do not exhibit any significant warming/cooling trend.
In the present work we have revealed some important features describing the daily average air temperature (DAT) changes, variability and their temporal evolution at the Prague-Sporilov site. The variability and trends in daily near-surface air temperatures recorded during the 2003–2016 period were analyzed. The results were compared with the findings of our previous work covering the earlier 1994–2001 period [20,21]. We compared above data with the longer DAT, Tmax and Tmin series measured at the Prague-Klementinum Station. The results of both stations have shown very similar changes in the investigated statistical parameters as well as in the temporal trends. Such similarity increases the reliability of the obtained results.
The following principal conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The results demonstrated increasing warming trends for all investigated temperature series as well as decreasing trends in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) that hints a decrease of intra-daily temperature variability.
(2) The results revealed the generally reducing temperature variability. However, the velocity of the variability decrease has slowed down by approx. an order of magnitude in comparison with the previously investigated 1994–2001 period. It was also recognized that the persistence of detected processes exists on average, e.g. in the annual scales, and may break down during shorter periods. The pattern of the variability changes during the 2003–2016 period is found to be more diverse than in our earlier studies [20].
(3) The study reveals that the occurrence of both hottest and coldest extremes have increased during the investigated period at both stations. While an increase of the hot extremes represents a generally global feature, an increase of cold extremes is a local phenomenon. However, as the frequency of extreme days is low, they have no significant influence on most of detected trends.
This work was supported by the research infrastructure RINGEN co-funded by the Operational Program "Research, Development and Education" (CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001792) and by the Project LM2015079 CzechGeo/EPOS, both provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic. Special thanks are due to an anonymous reviewer who read the original text and offered valuable comments.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Asselah T, Durantel D, Pasmant E, et al. (2021) COVID-19: discovery, diagnostics and drug development. J Hepatol 74: 168-184. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.09.031
![]() |
[2] |
Rojas R, Basto A, Aguilar C, et al. (2018) Prevalencia de diabetes por diagnóstico médico previo en México. Salud Publica Mex 60: 224-232. doi: 10.21149/8566
![]() |
[3] |
Levaillant M, Lièvre G, Baert G (2019) Ending diabetes in Mexico. Lancet 394: 467-468. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31662-9
![]() |
[4] |
Singer M (2020) Deadly companions: COVID-19 and diabetes in Mexico. Med Anthropol 39: 660-665. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2020.1805742
![]() |
[5] |
Zhang W, Davis BD, Chen SS, et al. (2021) Emergence of a novel SARS-CoV-2 variant in southern California. JAMA 325: 1324-1326. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1612
![]() |
[6] |
Zucman N, Uhel F, Descamps D, et al. (2021) Severe reinfection with South African severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant 501Y.V2: a case report. Clin Infect Dis ciab129. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab129
![]() |
[7] |
Fujino T, Nomoto H, Kutsuna S, et al. (2021) Novel SARS-CoV-2 variant in travelers from Brazil to Japan. Emerg Infect Dis 27: 1243-1245. doi: 10.3201/eid2704.210138
![]() |
[8] |
Yadav PD, Nyayanit DA, Sahay RR, et al. (2021) Isolation and characterization of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant in travellers from the United Kingdom to India: VUI-202012/01 of the B.1.1.7 lineage. J Travel Med 28: taab009. doi: 10.1093/jtm/taab009
![]() |
[9] |
Zuckerman NS, Fleishon S, Bucris E, et al. (2021) A unique SARS-CoV-2 spike protein P681H variant detected in Israel. Vaccines 9: 616. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9060616
![]() |
[10] | Munitz A, Yechezkel M, Dickstein Y, et al. (2021) The rise of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 in Israel intensifies the role of surveillance and vaccination in elderly. medRxiv 2021. |
[11] | Mor O, Zuckerman NS, Hazan I, et al. (2021) BNT162b2 vaccination efficacy is marginally affected by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351 variant in fully vaccinated individuals. Avaliable at SSRN 3878825 . |
[12] |
Munitz A, Yechezkel M, Dickstein Y, et al. (2021) Report BNT162b2 vaccination effectively prevents the rapid populations in Israel ll BNT162b2 vaccination effectively prevents the rapid rise of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 in high-risk populations in Israel. Cell Rep Med 2: 100264. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100264
![]() |
[13] |
Haas EJ, Angulo FJ, Mclaughlin JM, et al. (2021) Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data. Lancet 397: 1819-1829. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00947-8
![]() |
[14] |
Kustin T, Harel N, Finkel U, et al. (2021) Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2-mRNA-vaccinated individuals. Nat Med 27: 1379-1384. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01413-7
![]() |
[15] |
Hu T, Liu Y, Zhao M, et al. (2020) A comparison of COVID-19, SARS and MERS. PeerJ 8: e9725. doi: 10.7717/peerj.9725
![]() |
[16] |
Harrison AG, Lin T, Wang P (2020) Mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and pathogenesis. Trends Immunol 41: 1100-1115. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2020.10.004
![]() |
[17] |
Yuki K, Fujiogi M, Koutsogiannaki S (2020) COVID-19 pathophysiology: a review. Clin Immunol 215: 108427. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108427
![]() |
[18] |
Sardu C, Gambardella J, Morelli MB, et al. (2020) Hypertension, thrombosis, kidney failure, and diabetes: is COVID-19 an endothelial disease? A comprehensive evaluation of clinical and basic evidence. J Clin Med 9: 1417. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051417
![]() |
[19] |
Safwat MA, Abdul-Rahman A, Forsan H, et al. (2021) COVID-19; Immunology, pathology, severity and immunosuppressants. Azhar Int J Pharm Med Sci 1: 1-14. doi: 10.21608/aijpms.2021.50103.1005
![]() |
[20] | Kabashneh S, Ali H, Alkassis S (2020) Multi-Organ failure in a patient with diabetes due to COVID-19 with clear lungs. Cureus 12: e8147. |
[21] |
Guo L, Shi Z, Zhang Y, et al. (2020) Comorbid diabetes and the risk of disease severity or death among 8807 COVID-19 patients in China: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 166: 108346. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108346
![]() |
[22] | Zhou Y, Chi J, Lv W, et al. (2021) Obesity and diabetes as high-risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Diabetes Metab Res Rev 37: e3377. |
[23] |
Parveen R, Sehar N, Bajpai R, et al. (2020) Association of diabetes and hypertension with disease severity in covid-19 patients: a systematic literature review and exploratory meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 166: 108295. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108295
![]() |
[24] |
Frydrych LM, Bian G, O'Lone DE, et al. (2018) Obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus drive immune dysfunction, infection development, and sepsis mortality. J Leukoc Biol 104: 525-534. doi: 10.1002/JLB.5VMR0118-021RR
![]() |
[25] |
Sur J, Sharma J, Sharma D (2021) Diabetes might augment the severity of COVID-19: a current prospects. Front Cardiovasc Med 7: 613255. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.613255
![]() |
[26] |
Kumar A, Arora A, Sharma P, et al. (2020) Is diabetes mellitus associated with mortality and severity of COVID-19? A meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 535-545. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.044
![]() |
[27] |
Jeong IK, Yoon KH, Lee MK (2020) Diabetes and COVID-19: global and regional perspectives. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 166: 108303. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108303
![]() |
[28] |
Chen Y, Yang D, Cheng B, et al. (2020) Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with diabetes and COVID-19 in association with glucose-lowering medication. Diabetes Care 43: 1399-1407. doi: 10.2337/dc20-0660
![]() |
[29] |
Mantovani A, Byrne CD, Zheng MH, et al. (2020) Diabetes as a risk factor for greater COVID-19 severity and in-hospital death: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 30: 1236-1248. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.05.014
![]() |
[30] |
Du M, Lin YX, Yan WX, et al. (2020) Prevalence and impact of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 in China. World J Diabetes 11: 468-480. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v11.i10.468
![]() |
[31] |
Targher G, Mantovani A, Wang XB, et al. (2020) Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Diabetes Metab 46: 335-337. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2020.05.001
![]() |
[32] |
Ciardullo S, Zerbini F, Perra S, et al. (2020) Impact of diabetes on COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality: a retrospective study from Northern Italy. J Endocrinol Invest 44: 843-850. doi: 10.1007/s40618-020-01382-7
![]() |
[33] |
Halvatsiotis P, Kotanidou A, Tzannis K, et al. (2020) Demographic and clinical features of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Greece: the burden of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 166: 108331. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108331
![]() |
[34] |
Nachtigall I, Lenga P, Jóźwiak K, et al. (2020) Clinical course and factors associated with outcomes among 1904 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Germany: an observational study. Clin Microbiol Infect 26: 1663-1669. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.011
![]() |
[35] |
Sutter W, Duceau B, Vignac M, et al. (2020) Association of diabetes and outcomes in patients with COVID-19: propensity score-matched analyses from a French retrospective cohort. Diabetes Metab 47: 101222. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2020.101222
![]() |
[36] |
Barron E, Bakhai C, Kar P, et al. (2020) Associations of type 1 and type 2 diabetes with COVID-19-related mortality in England: a whole-population study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 8: 813-822. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30272-2
![]() |
[37] |
Ge Y, Sun S, Shen Y (2021) Estimation of case-fatality rate in COVID-19 patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the New York State: a preliminary report. Epidemiol Infect 149: e14. doi: 10.1017/S0950268821000066
![]() |
[38] |
Hussain S, Baxi H, Chand Jamali M, et al. (2020) Burden of diabetes mellitus and its impact on COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of real-world evidence. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 1595-1602. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.08.014
![]() |
[39] |
Ashktorab H, Pizuorno A, Oskroch G, et al. (2021) COVID-19 in Latin America: symptoms, morbidities, and gastrointestinal manifestations. Gastroenterology 160: 938-940. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.033
![]() |
[40] |
Izzi-Engbeaya C, Distaso W, Amin A, et al. (2021) Adverse outcomes in COVID-19 and diabetes: a retrospective cohort study from three London teaching hospitals. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 9: e001858. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001858
![]() |
[41] |
Ebekozien O, Agarwal S, Noor N, et al. (2020) Inequities in diabetic ketoacidosis among patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19: data from 52 US clinical centers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 106: e1755-e1762. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa920
![]() |
[42] |
Hafidh K, Abbas S, Khan A, et al. (2020) The clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 infections in patients with diabetes at a tertiary care center in the UAE. Dubai Diabetes Endocrinol J 26: 158-163. doi: 10.1159/000512232
![]() |
[43] |
Yan Y, Yang Y, Wang F, et al. (2020) Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe covid-19 with diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 8: e001343. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001343
![]() |
[44] |
Ling P, Luo S, Zheng X, et al. (2021) Elevated fasting blood glucose within the first week of hospitalization was associated with progression to severe illness of COVID-19 in patients with preexisting diabetes: a multicenter observational study. J Diabetes 13: 89-93. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.13121
![]() |
[45] |
Silverio A, Di Maio M, Citro R, et al. (2021) Cardiovascular risk factors and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of 45 studies and 18,300 patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 21: 23. doi: 10.1186/s12872-020-01816-3
![]() |
[46] |
Acharya D, Lee K, Lee DS, et al. (2020) Mortality rate and predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with diabetes. Healthcare 8: 338. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8030338
![]() |
[47] |
Bode B, Garrett V, Messler J, et al. (2020) Glycemic characteristics and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the United States. J Diabetes Sci Technol 14: 813-821. doi: 10.1177/1932296820924469
![]() |
[48] | Bhandari S, Rankawat G, Singh A, et al. (2020) Impact of glycemic control in diabetes mellitus on management of COVID-19 infection. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries 1-6. |
[49] |
Ceriello A, De Nigris V, Prattichizzo F (2020) Why is hyperglycaemia worsening COVID-19 and its prognosis? Diabetes Obes Metab 22: 1951-1952. doi: 10.1111/dom.14098
![]() |
[50] |
Lee MH, Wong C, Ng CH, et al. (2021) Effects of hyperglycaemia on complications of COVID-19: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetes Obes Metab 23: 287-289. doi: 10.1111/dom.14184
![]() |
[51] |
Singh AK, Singh R (2020) Hyperglycemia without diabetes and new-onset diabetes are both associated with poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 167: 108382. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108382
![]() |
[52] |
Carrasco-Sánchez FJ, López-Carmona MD, Martínez-Marcos FJ, et al. (2021) Admission hyperglycaemia as a predictor of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of diabetes status: data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. Ann Med 53: 103-116. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2020.1836566
![]() |
[53] |
Wang S, Ma P, Zhang S, et al. (2020) Fasting blood glucose at admission is an independent predictor for 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 without previous diagnosis of diabetes: a multi-centre retrospective study. Diabetologia 63: 2102-2111. doi: 10.1007/s00125-020-05209-1
![]() |
[54] |
Li H, Tian S, Chen T, et al. (2020) Newly diagnosed diabetes is associated with a higher risk of mortality than known diabetes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Diabetes Obes Metab 22: 1897-1906. doi: 10.1111/dom.14099
![]() |
[55] |
Lim S, Bae JH, Kwon HS, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus: from pathophysiology to clinical management. Nat Rev Endocrinol 17: 11-30. doi: 10.1038/s41574-020-00435-4
![]() |
[56] |
Abu-Farha M, Al-Mulla F, Thanaraj TA, et al. (2020) Impact of diabetes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Front Immunol 11: 576818. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.576818
![]() |
[57] | Yaribeygi H, Sathyapalan T, Jamialahmadi T, et al. (2020) The impact of diabetes mellitus in COVID-19: a mechanistic review of molecular interactions. J Diabetes Res 2020: 5436832. |
[58] |
Singh AK, Gupta R, Ghosh A, et al. (2020) Diabetes in COVID-19: prevalence, pathophysiology, prognosis and practical considerations. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 303-310. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.004
![]() |
[59] |
Erener S (2020) Diabetes, infection risk and COVID-19. Mol Metab 39: 101044. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2020.101044
![]() |
[60] |
Azar WS, Njeim R, Fares AH, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus: how one pandemic worsens the other. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 21: 451-463. doi: 10.1007/s11154-020-09573-6
![]() |
[61] |
Banik GR, Alqahtani AS, Booy R, et al. (2016) Risk factors for severity and mortality in patients with MERS-CoV: analysis of publicly available data from Saudi Arabia. Virol Sin 31: 81-84. doi: 10.1007/s12250-015-3679-z
![]() |
[62] |
Kulcsar KA, Coleman CM, Beck SE, et al. (2019) Comorbid diabetes results in immune dysregulation and enhanced disease severity following MERS-CoV infection. JCI Insight 4: e131774. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.131774
![]() |
[63] | Halaji M, Farahani A, Ranjbar R, et al. (2020) Emerging coronaviruses: first SARS, second MERS and third SARS-COV-2: epidemiological updates of COVID-19. Infez Med 28: 6-17. |
[64] |
Muniyappa R, Gubbi S (2020) COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses, and diabetes mellitus. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 318: E736-E741. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00124.2020
![]() |
[65] | Petersmann A, Nauck M, Müller-Wieland D, et al. (2018) Definition, classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 127: S1-S7. |
[66] |
Punthakee Z, Goldenberg R, et al. (2018) Definition, classification and diagnosis of diabetes, prediabetes and metabolic syndrome. Can J Diabetes 42: S10-S15. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.003
![]() |
[67] |
Daryabor G, Atashzar MR, Kabelitz D, et al. (2020) The effects of type 2 diabetes mellitus on organ metabolism and the immune system. Front Immunol 11: 1582. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01582
![]() |
[68] |
Papatheodorou K, Banach M, Bekiari E, et al. (2018) Complications of diabetes 2017. J Diabetes Res 2018: 3086167. doi: 10.1155/2018/3086167
![]() |
[69] | Huang D, Refaat M, Mohammedi K, et al. (2017) Macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes and prediabetes. Biomed Res Int 2017: 7839101. |
[70] |
Khalil H (2017) Diabetes microvascular complications – A clinical update. Diabetes Metab Syndr 11: S133-S139. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2016.12.022
![]() |
[71] |
Struijs JN, Baan CA, Schellevis FG, et al. (2006) Comorbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus: impact on medical health care utilization. BMC Health Serv Res 6: 84. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-84
![]() |
[72] | Prattichizzo F, de Candia P, Nicolucci A, et al. (2021) Elevated HbA1c levels in pre-Covid-19 infection increases the risk of mortality: a sistematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev e3476. |
[73] |
Mirani M, Favacchio G, Carrone F, et al. (2020) Impact of comorbidities and glycemia at admission and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes with covid-19: a case series from an academic hospital in lombardy, Italy. Diabetes Care 43: 3042-3049. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1340
![]() |
[74] |
Orioli L, Servais T, Belkhir L, et al. (2021) Clinical characteristics and short-term prognosis of in-patients with diabetes and COVID-19: a retrospective study from an academic center in Belgium. Diabetes Metab Syndr 15: 149-157. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.12.020
![]() |
[75] |
Sun Y, Guan X, Jia L, et al. (2021) Independent and combined effects of hypertension and diabetes on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study of Huoshen Mountain Hospital and Guanggu Fangcang Shelter Hospital. J Clin Hypertens 23: 218-231. doi: 10.1111/jch.14146
![]() |
[76] |
Vieira E, Mirizio GG, Barin GR, et al. (2020) Clock genes, inflammation and the immune system—Implications for diabetes, obesity and neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Mol Sci 21: 9743. doi: 10.3390/ijms21249743
![]() |
[77] | Zhou T, Hu Z, Yang S, et al. (2018) Role of adaptive and innate immunity in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Res 2018: 7457269. |
[78] |
Hodgson K, Morris J, Bridson T, et al. (2015) Immunological mechanisms contributing to the double burden of diabetes and intracellular bacterial infections. Immunology 144: 171-185. doi: 10.1111/imm.12394
![]() |
[79] |
Alzaid F, Julla J, Diedisheim M, et al. (2020) Monocytopenia, monocyte morphological anomalies and hyperinflammation characterise severe COVID-19 in type 2 diabetes. EMBO Mol Med 12: e13038. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202013038
![]() |
[80] |
De Candia P, Prattichizzo F, Garavelli S, et al. (2019) Type 2 diabetes: how much of an autoimmune disease? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 10: 451. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00451
![]() |
[81] |
Prattichizzo F, Giuliani A, Sabbatinelli J, et al. (2020) Prevalence of residual inflammatory risk and associated clinical variables in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 22: 1696-1700. doi: 10.1111/dom.14081
![]() |
[82] |
Maedler K, Spinas GA, Lehmann R, et al. (2001) Glucose induces β-Cell apoptosis via upregulation of the Fas receptor in human islets. Diabetes 50: 1683-1690. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.50.8.1683
![]() |
[83] |
Maedler K, Sergeev P, Ris F, et al. (2002) Glucose-induced β cell production of IL-1β contributes to glucotoxicity in human pancreatic islets. J Clin Invest 110: 851-860. doi: 10.1172/JCI200215318
![]() |
[84] | Zhou W, Ye S, Wang W, et al. (2020) Clinical features of COVID-19 patients with diabetes and secondary hyperglycemia. J Diabetes Res 2020: 3918723. |
[85] |
Roganović J (2021) Downregulation of microRNA-146a in diabetes, obesity and hypertension may contribute to severe COVID-19. Med Hypotheses 146: 110448. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110448
![]() |
[86] |
Gou L, Xiang M, Ran X, et al. (2021) Hyperosmolarity deserves more attention in critically Ill COVID-19 patients with diabetes: a cohort-based study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Targets Ther 14: 47-58. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S284148
![]() |
[87] |
Zheng M, Wang X, Guo H, et al. (2021) The cytokine profiles and immune response are increased in COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Res 2021: 9526701. doi: 10.1155/2021/9526701
![]() |
[88] | Guo W, Li M, Dong Y, et al. (2020) Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev e3319. |
[89] |
Cheng Y, Yue L, Wang Z, et al. (2021) Hyperglycemia associated with lymphopenia and disease severity of COVID-19 in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Complications 35: 107809. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107809
![]() |
[90] | Sun Y, Zhao R, Hu Z, et al. (2020) Differences in the clinical and hematological characteristics of COVID-19 patients with and without type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Res 2020: 1038585. |
[91] |
Zhang Y, Li H, Zhang J, et al. (2020) The clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with diabetes and secondary hyperglycaemia with coronavirus disease 2019: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study in Wuhan. Diabetes Obes Metab 22: 1443-1454. doi: 10.1111/dom.14086
![]() |
[92] |
Ulhaq ZS, Soraya GV (2020) Interleukin-6 as a potential biomarker of COVID-19 progression. Médecine Mal Infect 50: 382-383. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2020.04.002
![]() |
[93] |
Scheller J, Chalaris A, Schmidt-Arras D, et al. (2011) The pro- and anti-inflammatory properties of the cytokine interleukin-6. Biochim Biophys Acta 1813: 878-888. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2011.01.034
![]() |
[94] | Muangchan C, Pope JE (2013) The significance of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in systemic sclerosis: a systematic literature review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 31: 122-134. |
[95] |
Mishra Y, Pathak BK, Mohakuda SS, et al. (2020) Relation of D-dimer levels of COVID-19 patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 1927-1930. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.09.035
![]() |
[96] |
Rostami M, Mansouritorghabeh H (2020) D-dimer level in COVID-19 infection: a systematic review. Expert Rev Hematol 13: 1265-1275. doi: 10.1080/17474086.2020.1831383
![]() |
[97] |
Mei H, Luo L, Hu Y (2020) Thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Hematol Oncol 13: 161. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-01003-z
![]() |
[98] |
Zahran AM, El-Badawy O, Mohamad IL, et al. (2018) Platelet activation and platelet–leukocyte aggregates in type I diabetes mellitus. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 24: 230S-239S. doi: 10.1177/1076029618805861
![]() |
[99] |
Kaur R, Kaur M, Singh J (2018) Endothelial dysfunction and platelet hyperactivity in type 2 diabetes mellitus: molecular insights and therapeutic strategies. Cardiovasc Diabetol 17: 121. doi: 10.1186/s12933-018-0763-3
![]() |
[100] |
Shang J, Wang Q, Zhang H, et al. (2021) The relationship between diabetes mellitus and COVID-19 prognosis: a retrospective cohort study in Wuhan, China. Am J Med 134: e6-e14. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.05.033
![]() |
[101] | Guo T, Shen Q, Ouyang X, et al. (2021) Clinical findings in diabetes mellitus patients with COVID-19. J Diabetes Res 2021: 7830136. |
[102] |
Al-Salameh A, Lanoix JP, Bennis Y, et al. (2021) Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 37: e3388. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3388
![]() |
[103] | Chen X, Hu W, Ling J, et al. (2020) Hypertension and diabetes delay the viral clearance in COVID-19 patients. medRxiv . |
[104] |
Clarke NE, Turner AJ (2012) Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2: the first decade. Int J Hypertens 2012: 307315. doi: 10.1155/2012/307315
![]() |
[105] |
Warner FJ, Smith AI, Hooper NM, et al. (2004) Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2: a molecular and cellular perspective. Cell Mol Life Sci 61: 2704-2713. doi: 10.1007/s00018-004-4240-7
![]() |
[106] |
Santos RAS, Ferreira AJ, Simões E, Silva AC (2008) Recent advances in the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2-angiotensin(1-7)-Mas axis. Exp Physiol 93: 519-527. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2008.042002
![]() |
[107] |
Santos RAS, Ferreira AJ, Verano-Braga T, et al. (2013) Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, angiotensin-(1-7) and Mas: new players of the renin-angiotensin system. J Endocrinol 216: R1-R17. doi: 10.1530/JOE-12-0341
![]() |
[108] |
Hashimoto T, Perlot T, Rehman A, et al. (2012) ACE2 links amino acid malnutrition to microbial ecology and intestinal inflammation. Nature 487: 477-481. doi: 10.1038/nature11228
![]() |
[109] |
Perlot T, Penninger JM (2013) ACE2 – From the renin-angiotensin system to gut microbiota and malnutrition. Microbes Infect 15: 866-873. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2013.08.003
![]() |
[110] |
Hamming I, Timens W, Bulthuis MLC, et al. (2004) Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. J Pathol 203: 631-637. doi: 10.1002/path.1570
![]() |
[111] |
Tikellis C, Johnston CI, Forbes JM, et al. (2003) Characterization of renal angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in diabetic nephropathy. Hypertension 41: 392-397. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000060689.38912.CB
![]() |
[112] |
Xia H, Lazartigues E (2008) Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in the brain: properties and future directions. J Neurochem 107: 1482-1494. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05723.x
![]() |
[113] |
Xu H, Zhong L, Deng J, et al. (2020) High expression of ACE2 receptor of 2019-nCoV on the epithelial cells of oral mucosa. Int J Oral Sci 12: 8. doi: 10.1038/s41368-020-0074-x
![]() |
[114] |
To KF, Lo AWI (2004) Exploring the pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): The tissue distribution of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and its putative receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). J Pathol 203: 740-743. doi: 10.1002/path.1597
![]() |
[115] |
Batlle D, Wysocki J, Satchell K (2020) Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2: a potential approach for coronavirus infection therapy? Clin Sci 134: 543-545. doi: 10.1042/CS20200163
![]() |
[116] |
Ni W, Yang X, Yang D, et al. (2020) Role of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in COVID-19. Crit Care 24: 422. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03120-0
![]() |
[117] |
Zhang H, Penninger JM, Li Y, et al. (2020) Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med 46: 586-590. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9
![]() |
[118] |
Shang J, Wan Y, Luo C, et al. (2020) Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117: 11727-11734. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2003138117
![]() |
[119] |
Valencia I, Peiró C, Lorenzo Ó, et al. (2020) DPP4 and ACE2 in diabetes and COVID-19: therapeutic targets for cardiovascular complications? Front Pharmacol 11: 1161. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01161
![]() |
[120] |
Bourgonje AR, Abdulle AE, Timens W, et al. (2020) Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), SARS-CoV-2 and the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Pathol 251: 228-248. doi: 10.1002/path.5471
![]() |
[121] | Chen J, Jiang Q, Xia X, et al. (2020) Individual variation of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 gene expression and regulation. Aging Cell 19: e13168. |
[122] |
Mizuiri S, Hemmi H, Arita M, et al. (2008) Expression of ACE and ACE2 in individuals with diabetic kidney disease and healthy controls. Am J Kidney Dis 51: 613-623. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.11.022
![]() |
[123] |
Reich HN, Oudit GY, Penninger JM, et al. (2008) Decreased glomerular and tubular expression of ACE2 in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease. Kidney Int 74: 1610-1616. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.497
![]() |
[124] |
Gilbert RE, Caldwell L, Misra PS, et al. (2021) Overexpression of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, in diabetic kidney disease: implications for kidney injury in novel coronavirus disease 2019. Can J Diabetes 45: 162-166.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2020.07.003
![]() |
[125] |
Soldo J, Heni M, Königsrainer A, et al. (2020) Increased hepatic ace2 expression in nafl and diabetes-a risk for covid-19 patients? Diabetes Care 43: e134-e136. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1458
![]() |
[126] |
Wijnant SRA, Jacobs M, Van Eeckhoutte HP, et al. (2020) Expression of ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, in lung tissue of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 69: 2691-2699. doi: 10.2337/db20-0669
![]() |
[127] |
Parit R, Jayavel S (2021) Association of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin type II blockers with ACE2 overexpression in COVID-19 comorbidities: a pathway-based analytical study. Eur J Pharmacol 896: 173899. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.173899
![]() |
[128] |
Pal R, Bhadada SK (2020) COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus: an unholy interaction of two pandemics. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 513-517. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.049
![]() |
[129] |
Menon R, Otto EA, Sealfon R, et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 receptor networks in diabetic and COVID-19–associated kidney disease. Kidney Int 98: 1502-1518. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.09.015
![]() |
[130] |
Batchu SN, Kaur H, Yerra VG, et al. (2021) Lung and kidney ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in renin-angiotensin system blocker-treated comorbid diabetic mice mimicking host factors that have been linked to severe COVID-19. Diabetes 70: 759-771. doi: 10.2337/db20-0765
![]() |
[131] |
Sriram K, Insel PA (2020) Risks of ACE inhibitor and ARB usage in COVID-19: evaluating the evidence. Clin Pharmacol Ther 108: 236-241. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1863
![]() |
[132] |
Burrell LM, Harrap SB, Velkoska E, et al. (2013) The ACE2 gene: its potential as a functional candidate for cardiovascular disease. Clin Sci 124: 65-76. doi: 10.1042/CS20120269
![]() |
[133] |
Meng N, Zhang Y, Ma J, et al. (2015) Association of polymorphisms of angiotensin i converting enzyme 2 with retinopathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus among Chinese individuals. Eye 29: 266-271. doi: 10.1038/eye.2014.254
![]() |
[134] |
Fröjdö S, Sjölind L, Parkkonen M, et al. (2005) Polymorphisms in the gene encoding angiotensin I converting enzyme 2 and diabetic nephropathy. Diabetologia 48: 2278-2281. doi: 10.1007/s00125-005-1955-4
![]() |
[135] |
Currie D, McKnight AJ, Patterson CC, et al. (2010) Investigation of ACE, ACE2 and AGTR1 genes for association with nephropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 27: 1188-1194. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03097.x
![]() |
[136] | Chaoxin J, Daili S, Yanxin H, et al. (2013) The influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 gene polymorphisms on type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17: 2654-2659. |
[137] |
Patel SK, Wai B, Ord M, et al. (2012) Association of ACE2 genetic variants with blood pressure, left ventricular mass, and cardiac function in caucasians with type 2 diabetes. Am J Hypertens 25: 216-222. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2011.188
![]() |
[138] |
Sayed S (2021) COVID-19 and diabetes; Possible role of polymorphism and rise of telemedicine. Prim Care Diabetes 15: 4-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2020.08.018
![]() |
[139] |
Calcagnile M, Forgez P, Iannelli A, et al. (2021) Molecular docking simulation reveals ACE2 polymorphisms that may increase the affinity of ACE2 with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Biochimie 180: 143-148. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2020.11.004
![]() |
[140] | Calcagnile M, Forgez P, Iannelli A, et al. (2020) ACE2 polymorphisms and individual susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection: insights from an in silico study. bioRxiv . |
[141] |
Hamet P, Pausova Z, Attaoua R, et al. (2021) SARS-COV-2 receptor ACE2 gene is associated with hypertension and severity of COVID 19: interaction with sex, obesity and smoking. Am J Hypertens 34: 367-376. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpaa223
![]() |
[142] |
Choudhary S, Sreenivasulu K, Mitra P, et al. (2020) Role of genetic variants and gene expression in the susceptibility and severity of COVID-19. Ann Lab Med 41: 129-138. doi: 10.3343/alm.2021.41.2.129
![]() |
[143] |
Paniri A, Hosseini MM, Moballegh-Eslam M, et al. (2021) Comprehensive in silico identification of impacts of ACE2 SNPs on COVID-19 susceptibility in different populations. Gene Rep 22: 100979. doi: 10.1016/j.genrep.2020.100979
![]() |
[144] |
Wee AKH (2021) COVID-19's toll on the elderly and those with diabetes mellitus – Is vitamin B12 deficiency an accomplice? Med Hypotheses 146: 110374. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110374
![]() |
[145] |
Gonçalves SEAB, Gonçalves TJM, Guarnieri A, et al. (2021) Association between thiamine deficiency and hyperlactatemia among critically ill patients with diabetes infected by SARS-CoV-2. J Diabetes 13: 413-419. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.13156
![]() |
[146] |
Rhodes JM, Subramanian S, Laird E, et al. (2021) Perspective: vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 severity – plausibly linked by latitude, ethnicity, impacts on cytokines, ACE2 and thrombosis. J Intern Med 289: 97-115. doi: 10.1111/joim.13149
![]() |
[147] |
Tort AR, Montelongo EAM, Cuazitl AM, et al. (2020) La deficiencia de vitamina D es un factor de riesgo de mortalidad en pacientes con COVID-19. Rev Sanid Milit 74: 106-113. doi: 10.35366/93773
![]() |
[148] |
Biesalski HK (2020) Vitamin D deficiency and co-morbidities in COVID-19 patients – A fatal relationship? NFS J 20: 10. doi: 10.1016/j.nfs.2020.06.001
![]() |
[149] |
Berridge MJ (2017) Vitamin D deficiency and diabetes. Biochem J 474: 1321-1332. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20170042
![]() |
[150] |
Luo BA, Gao F, Qin LL (2017) The association between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutrients 9: 307. doi: 10.3390/nu9030307
![]() |
[151] |
Singh SK, Jain R, Singh S (2020) Vitamin D deficiency in patients with diabetes and COVID-19 infection. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 1033-1035. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.071
![]() |
[152] |
Jin S, Hu W (2021) Severity of COVID-19 and treatment strategy for patient with diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 12: 602735. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.602735
![]() |
[153] |
Ceriello A, Prattichizzo F (2021) Pharmacological management of COVID-19 in type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 35: 107927. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2021.107927
![]() |
[154] |
Deng F, Gao D, Ma X, et al. (2021) Corticosteroids in diabetes patients infected with COVID-19. Ir J Med Sci 190: 29-31. doi: 10.1007/s11845-020-02287-3
![]() |
[155] |
Stoian AP, Catrinoiu D, Rizzo M, et al. (2021) Hydroxychloroquine, COVID-19 and diabetes. Why it is a different story. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 37: e3379. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3379
![]() |
[156] |
Khunti K, Knighton P, Zaccardi F, et al. (2021) Prescription of glucose-lowering therapies and risk of COVID-19 mortality in people with type 2 diabetes : a nationwide observational study in England. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9: 293-303. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00050-4
![]() |
[157] |
Gregory JM, Slaughter JC, Duffus SH, et al. (2021) COVID-19 severity is tripled in the diabetes community: a prospective analysis of the pandemic's impact in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 44: 526-532. doi: 10.2337/dc20-2260
![]() |
[158] |
Fisher L, Polonsky W, Asuni A, et al. (2020) The early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a national cohort study. J Diabetes Complications 34: 107748. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2020.107748
![]() |
[159] |
Ruissen MM, Regeer H, Landstra CP, et al. (2021) Increased stress, weight gain and less exercise in relation to glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 9: e002035. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-002035
![]() |
[160] |
Holman N, Knighton P, Kar P, et al. (2020) Risk factors for COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 8: 823-833. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30271-0
![]() |
[161] |
Beliard K, Ebekozien O, Demeterco-Berggren C, et al. (2021) Increased DKA at presentation among newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes patients with or without COVID-19: data from a multi-site surveillance registry. J Diabetes 13: 270-272. doi: 10.1111/1753-0407.13141
![]() |
[162] |
Vamvini M, Lioutas VA, Middelbeek RJW (2020) Characteristics and diabetes control in adults with type 1 diabetes admitted with covid-19 infection. Diabetes Care 43: e120-e122. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1540
![]() |
[163] |
Al Hayek AA, Robert AA, Alotaibi ZK, et al. (2020) Clinical characteristics of hospitalized and home isolated COVID-19 patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 1841-1845. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.09.013
![]() |
[164] |
Unsworth R, Wallace S, Oliver NS, et al. (2020) New-onset type 1 diabetes in children during COVID-19: multicenter regional findings in the U.K.. Diabetes Care 43: e170-e171. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1551
![]() |
[165] |
Suwanwongse K, Shabarek N (2021) Newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus, DKA, and COVID-19: causality or coincidence? A report of three cases. J Med Virol 93: 1150-1153. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26339
![]() |
[166] |
Dimeglio LA, Albanese-O'neill A, Muñoz CE, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and children with diabetesdupdates, unknowns, and next steps: first, do no extrapolation. Diabetes Care 43: 2631-2634. doi: 10.2337/dci20-0044
![]() |
[167] |
Cameron FJ, Scratch SE, Nadebaum C, et al. (2014) Neurological consequences of diabetic ketoacidosis at initial presentation of type 1 diabetes in a prospective cohort study of children. Diabetes Care 37: 1554-1562. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1904
![]() |
[168] |
Kamrath C, Mönkemöller K, Biester T, et al. (2020) Ketoacidosis in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. JAMA 324: 801-804. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13445
![]() |
[169] |
Rabbone I, Schiaffini R, Cherubini V, et al. (2020) Has COVID-19 delayed the diagnosis and worsened the presentation of type 1 diabetes in children? Diabetes Care 43: 2870-2872. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1321
![]() |
[170] |
Powers AC, Aronoff DM, Eckel RH (2021) COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9: 140-141. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00017-6
![]() |
[171] |
Boddu SK, Aurangabadkar G, Kuchay MS (2020) New onset diabetes, type 1 diabetes and COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 2211-2217. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.11.012
![]() |
[172] |
Kuchay MS, Reddy PK, Gagneja S, et al. (2020) Short term follow-up of patients presenting with acute onset diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis during an episode of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 2039-2041. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.10.015
![]() |
[173] |
Marchand L, Pecquet M, Luyton C (2020) Type 1 diabetes onset triggered by COVID-19. Acta Diabetol 57: 1265-1266. doi: 10.1007/s00592-020-01570-0
![]() |
[174] |
Caruso P, Longo M, Esposito K, et al. (2020) Type 1 diabetes triggered by covid-19 pandemic: a potential outbreak? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 164: 108219. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108219
![]() |
[175] |
Goyal H, Sachdeva S, Perisetti A, et al. (2021) Hyperlipasemia and potential pancreatic injury patterns in COVID-19: a marker of severity or innocent bystander? Gastroenterology 160: 946-948.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.037
![]() |
[176] |
Patnaik RNK, Gogia A, Kakar A (2020) Acute pancreatic injury induced by COVID-19. IDCases 22: e00959. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2020.e00959
![]() |
[177] |
Bruno G, Fabrizio C, Santoro CR, et al. (2021) Pancreatic injury in the course of coronavirus disease 2019: a not-so-rare occurrence. J Med Virol 93: 74-75. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26134
![]() |
[178] |
Ghosh A, Gupta V, Misra A (2020) COVID19 induced acute pancreatitis and pancreatic necrosis in a patient with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr 14: 2097-2098. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.10.008
![]() |
[179] |
Alharmi RAR, Fateel T, Sayed Adnan J, et al. (2021) Acute pancreatitis in a patient with COVID-19. BMJ Case Rep 14: e239656. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2020-239656
![]() |
[180] |
Wang F, Wang H, Fan J, et al. (2020) Pancreatic injury patterns in patients with coronavirus disease 19 pneumonia. Gastroenterology 159: 367-370. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.055
![]() |
[181] |
Pribadi RR, Simadibrata M (2021) Increased serum amylase and/or lipase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients: is it really pancreatic injury? JGH Open 5: 190-192. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12436
![]() |
[182] |
Coate KC, Cha J, Shrestha S, et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 cell entry factors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are expressed in the microvasculature and ducts of human pancreas but are not enriched in β cells. Cell Metab 32: 1028-1040.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.11.006
![]() |
[183] |
Kusmartseva I, Wu W, Syed F, et al. (2020) Expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry factors in the pancreas of normal organ donors and individuals with COVID-19. Cell Metab 32: 1041-1051.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.11.005
![]() |
[184] |
Müller JA, Groß R, Conzelmann C, et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 infects and replicates in cells of the human endocrine and exocrine pancreas. Nat Metab 3: 149-165. doi: 10.1038/s42255-021-00347-1
![]() |
1. | Zinabu A. Alemu, Emmanuel C. Dioha, Michael O. Dioha, Hydro-meteorological drought in Addis Ababa: A characterization study, 2021, 8, 2372-0352, 148, 10.3934/environsci.2021011 |
Data | Mean temperature (deg.C) | Warming (K/decade) |
Sporilov | ||
Daily temp. | 10.61 ± 0.12 | 1.16 ± 0.29 |
Spring temp. | 10.64 | 0.93 |
Summer temp. | 20.04 | 0.83 |
Fall temp. | 10.31 | 0.11 |
Winter temp. | 1.28 | 2.00 |
Klementinum | ||
Daily temp. | 11.49 ± 0.11 | 0.97 ± 0.28 |
Spring temp. | 11.42 | 0.45 |
Summer temp. | 20.84 | 0.30 |
Fall temp. | 11.27 | 0.44 |
Winter temp. | 2.25 | 1.83 |
Tmax | 15.29 ± 0.13 | 0.90 ± 0.32 |
Tmin | 7.94 ± 0.10 | 1.16 ± 0.25 |
Period | 1900–1950 | 1950–2000 | 2000–2016 |
DAT | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 9.47 ± 0.06 | 10.10 ± 0.06 | 11.47 ± 0.10 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.159 ± 0.042 | 0.267 ± 0.041 | 0.607 ± 0.209 |
Tmax | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 13.10 ± 0.07 | 13.83 ± 0.08 | 15.26 ± 0.12 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.334 ± 0.047 | 0.221 ± 0.047 | 0.625 ± 0.240 |
Tmin | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 5.97 ± 0.05 | 6.47 ± 0.05 | 7.92 ± 0.09 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.003 ± 0.038 | 0.296 ± 0.036 | 0.728 ± 0.184 |
Time interval | Mean (K) | Slope (K/decade) |
1971.1.1–1980.12.31 | 1.70 | -0.001 |
1981.1.1–1990.12.31 | 1.808 | -0.044 |
1991.1.1–2000.12.31 | 1.826 | -0.079 |
2001.1.1–2010.12.31 | 1.742 | -0.13 |
2011.1.1–2016.12.31 | 1.812 | -0.32 |
Period | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2007–2016 |
A1 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
A2 | 19 | 24 | 32 |
Interval (years) | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2011–2016 |
Tmin10p | -1, 4 | -1, 9 | -0, 2 |
Tmin90p | 15, 2 | 17, 1 | 17, 2 |
Tmax10p | 2, 6 | 2, 2 | 4 |
Tmax90p | 25 | 27, 5 | 27, 9 |
Time interval | TXx | TXn | TNx | TNn |
1971–1980 | 34.7 | -11.0 | 22.6 | -17.3 |
1981–1990 | 37.8 | -14.3 | 22.2 | -20.2 |
1991–2000 | 36.1 | -10.6 | 23.0 | -19.8 |
2001–2010 | 37.3 | -9.3 | 23.8 | -14.8 |
2011–2016 | 37.6 | -8.7 | 24.0 | -17.1 |
Data | Mean temperature (deg.C) | Warming (K/decade) |
Sporilov | ||
Daily temp. | 10.61 ± 0.12 | 1.16 ± 0.29 |
Spring temp. | 10.64 | 0.93 |
Summer temp. | 20.04 | 0.83 |
Fall temp. | 10.31 | 0.11 |
Winter temp. | 1.28 | 2.00 |
Klementinum | ||
Daily temp. | 11.49 ± 0.11 | 0.97 ± 0.28 |
Spring temp. | 11.42 | 0.45 |
Summer temp. | 20.84 | 0.30 |
Fall temp. | 11.27 | 0.44 |
Winter temp. | 2.25 | 1.83 |
Tmax | 15.29 ± 0.13 | 0.90 ± 0.32 |
Tmin | 7.94 ± 0.10 | 1.16 ± 0.25 |
Period | 1900–1950 | 1950–2000 | 2000–2016 |
DAT | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 9.47 ± 0.06 | 10.10 ± 0.06 | 11.47 ± 0.10 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.159 ± 0.042 | 0.267 ± 0.041 | 0.607 ± 0.209 |
Tmax | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 13.10 ± 0.07 | 13.83 ± 0.08 | 15.26 ± 0.12 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.334 ± 0.047 | 0.221 ± 0.047 | 0.625 ± 0.240 |
Tmin | |||
Mean (deg.C) | 5.97 ± 0.05 | 6.47 ± 0.05 | 7.92 ± 0.09 |
Slope (K/decade) | 0.003 ± 0.038 | 0.296 ± 0.036 | 0.728 ± 0.184 |
Time interval | Mean (K) | Slope (K/decade) |
1971.1.1–1980.12.31 | 1.70 | -0.001 |
1981.1.1–1990.12.31 | 1.808 | -0.044 |
1991.1.1–2000.12.31 | 1.826 | -0.079 |
2001.1.1–2010.12.31 | 1.742 | -0.13 |
2011.1.1–2016.12.31 | 1.812 | -0.32 |
Period | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2007–2016 |
A1 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
A2 | 19 | 24 | 32 |
Interval (years) | 1971–1980 | 2001–2010 | 2011–2016 |
Tmin10p | -1, 4 | -1, 9 | -0, 2 |
Tmin90p | 15, 2 | 17, 1 | 17, 2 |
Tmax10p | 2, 6 | 2, 2 | 4 |
Tmax90p | 25 | 27, 5 | 27, 9 |
Time interval | TXx | TXn | TNx | TNn |
1971–1980 | 34.7 | -11.0 | 22.6 | -17.3 |
1981–1990 | 37.8 | -14.3 | 22.2 | -20.2 |
1991–2000 | 36.1 | -10.6 | 23.0 | -19.8 |
2001–2010 | 37.3 | -9.3 | 23.8 | -14.8 |
2011–2016 | 37.6 | -8.7 | 24.0 | -17.1 |