Assessment and prevention of hypoglycaemia in primary care among U.S. Veterans: a mixed methods study.

Background: Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits. Methods: This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines. Findings: There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted. Interpretation: PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention. Funding: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

Lower-Intensity Interventions for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of interventions for diabetes prevention have focused on lifestyle interventions, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and translations of the DPP. However, nationally, few people with prediabetes have joined or completed a DPP, with one cited barrier being committing to a yearlong program. This study was a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for prediabetes on weight change, glycemia, and health behaviors. METHODS: English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2000 to February 23, 2022 were searched for RCTs of nonpregnant adults with prediabetes and elevated BMI and lower-intensity interventions (defined as ≤12 months and <14 sessions over 6 months). Two reviewers independently identified 11 trials, assessed study quality (using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool), and extracted data serially. A qualitative synthesis was conducted by outcome. RESULTS: Only 1 of 11 trials of lower-intensity interventions was of high quality (>80% follow-up rate and low risk of bias). This 6-month study compared an app with standardized dietary advice, showing a 3-kg greater body weight reduction and 0.2% greater reduction of HbA1c. DISCUSSION: The evidence on lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention is limited by the small number and methodologic weaknesses of previous trials, and future research is needed in this area. Given the low uptake of and retention in evidence-based high-intensity programs, future work is needed to investigate the effectiveness of novel lower-intensity interventions offered with established DPP content of varying duration and intensity.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Engaging Payors and Primary Care Physicians Together in Improving Diabetes Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes can be prevented through lifestyle programs like the Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPP), but few people with prediabetes participate in them, in part because their insurance does not reliably cover DPPs. Prior studies have not focused on payor-level barriers. OBJECTIVE: To understand barriers to DPP uptake that exist and intersect at different levels (patients, PCPs, and payors) to inform strategies to improve diabetes prevention in primary care settings through interviews with PCPs and payors. DESIGN: From May 2020 to October 2021, we conducted remote, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and payors. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs were from primary care practices affiliated with one mid-Atlantic academic system. Payor leaders were from regional commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans. APPROACH: Using a standardized interview guide focused on barriers, facilitators, and potential intervention components, interviews were audio-recorded using Zoom and professionally transcribed. Two reviewers double-coded transcripts using the framework analytic approach. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 16 PCPs from 13 primary care clinics and 7 payor leaders representing 6 insurance plans. Two themes emerged from PCP reports of patient-level barriers: (1) lack of programs and insurance coverage of resources to address nutrition and exercise and (2) inadequate resources to address social determinants of health that impact diabetes prevention. Among barriers PCPs faced, we identified two themes: (1) low PCP knowledge about DPPs and misperceptions of insurance coverage of DPPs and (2) inadequate clinical staff to address diabetes prevention. Barriers common to PCPs and payors included (1) absence of prediabetes quality measures and (2) inadequate engagement of PCPs and patients with payors. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions with PCPs and payors revealed systemic barriers that suggest important priorities to improve prediabetes clinical care, including universal coverage of DPPs, clarity about coverage benefits, data reporting and outreach by payors to PCPs, and adoption of appropriate prediabetes quality measures.

Assessing COVID-19 Pandemic Risk Perception and Response Preparedness in Veterinary and Animal Care Workers.

Veterinary and animal care workers perform critical functions in biosecurity and public health, yet little has been done to understand the unique needs and barriers these workers face when responding during a pandemic crisis. In this article, we evaluated the perceived risks and roles of veterinary and animal care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and explored barriers and facilitators in their readiness, ability, and willingness to respond during a pandemic. We deployed a survey targeting US veterinary medical personnel, animal shelter and control workers, zoo and wildlife workers, and other animal care workers. Data were collected on respondents' self-reported job and demographic factors, perceptions of risk and job efficacy, and readiness, ability, and willingness to respond during the pandemic. We found that leadership roles and older age had the strongest association with decreased perceived risk and improved job efficacy and confidence, and that increased reported contact level with others (both coworkers and the public) was associated with increased perceived risk. We determined that older age and serving in leadership positions were associated with improved readiness, willingness, and ability to respond. Veterinary and animal care workers' dedication to public health response, reflected in our findings, will be imperative if more zoonotic vectors of SARS-CoV-2 arise. Response preparedness in veterinary and animal care workers can be improved by targeting younger workers not in leadership roles through support programs that focus on improving job efficacy and confidence in safety protocols. These findings can be used to target intervention and training efforts to support the most vulnerable within this critical, yet often overlooked, workforce.