Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Risk for Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors in U.S. Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: A major concern has recently emerged about a potential link between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors based on International Classification of Diseases codes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between GLP-1 RAs, compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), and risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN: Two target trial emulation studies comparing propensity score (PS)-matched cohorts for GLP-1 RAs versus SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs versus DPP4is. SETTING: U.S. national Medicare administrative data from January 2017 to December 2020. PATIENTS: Older adults (≥66 years) with T2D; no record of suicidal ideation or behaviors; and a first prescription for a GLP-1 RA, SGLT2i, or DPP4i. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a composite of suicidal ideation and behaviors. New GLP-1 RA users were matched 1:1 on PS to new users of an SGLT2i or DPP4i in each pairwise comparison. A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CIs within matched groups. RESULTS: This study included 21 807 pairs of patients treated with a GLP-1 RA versus an SGLT2i and 21 402 pairs of patients treated with a GLP-1 RA versus a DPP4i. The HR of suicidal ideation and behaviors associated with GLP-1 RAs relative to SGLT2is was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.45; rate difference, 0.16 [CI, -0.53 to 0.86] per 1000 person-years); the HR relative to DPP4is was 0.94 (CI, 0.71 to 1.24; rate difference, -0.18 [CI, -0.92 to 0.57] per 1000 person-years). LIMITATIONS: Low event rate; imprecise estimates; unmeasured confounders, such as body mass index; and potential misclassification of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries with T2D, this study found no clear increased risk for suicidal ideation and behaviors with GLP-1 RAs, although estimates were imprecise and a modest adverse risk could not be ruled out. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: High prevalence of depression or anxiety with opioid use for chronic pain complicates co-management and may influence prescribing behaviors. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical effectiveness of electronic medical record clinical decision support (EMR-CDS) versus additional behavioral health (BH) care management for reducing rates of high-dose opioid prescriptions. DESIGN: Type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 35 primary care clinics within a health system in LA, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18+ receiving chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain with depression or anxiety and matched controls. INTERVENTION: EMR-CDS included opioid risk mitigation procedures. BH care included cognitive behavioral therapy; depression or anxiety medication adjustments; and case management. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes of interest included difference-in-difference (DID) estimate of changes in probability for prescribing high-dose morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD ≥50 mg/day and MEDD ≥90), average MEDD, and rates of hospitalization, emergency department use, and opioid risk mitigation. KEY RESULTS: Most participants were female with 3+ pain syndromes. Data analysis included 632 patients. Absolute risk differences for MEDD≥50 and ≥90 decreased post-index compared to pre-index (DID of absolute risk difference [95%CI]: -0.036 [-0.089, 0.016] and -0.029 [-0.060, 0.002], respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The average MEDD decreased at a higher rate for the BH group compared to EMR-CDS only (DID rate ratio [95%CI]: 0.85 [0.77, 0.93]). There were no changes in hospitalization and emergency department utilization. The BH group had higher probabilities of new specialty referrals and prescriptions for naloxone and antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of a multidisciplinary behavioral health care team into primary care did not decrease high-dose prescribing; however, it improved adherence to clinical guideline recommendations for managing chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03889418.

Effects of Non-Face-to-Face Chronic Care Management on Service Utilization and Outcomes Among US Medicare Beneficiaries with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) results in heavy economic and disease burdens in Louisiana. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has reimbursed non-face-to-face chronic care management (NFFCCM) for patients with two or more chronic conditions since 2015. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impacts of NFFCCM on healthcare utilization and health outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with T2DM and at least one additional chronic disease between 2014 and 2018. EXPOSURES: At least one record of NFFCCM Current Procedural Terminology codes. MAIN MEASURES: The health outcomes in the study included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and heart failure. The monthly service utilization and continuity of care index for primary care were also included. The propensity score method was used to balance the baseline differences between the two groups. Weighted multivariate regression models were developed using propensity score weights to assess the impacts of NFFCCM on outcomes. KEY RESULTS: During the 5 years of study period, 8415 patients among the 118,643 Medicare beneficiaries received at least one NFFCCM. Patients receiving any NFFCCM had reduced healthcare utilization compared with patients not receiving NFFCCM, including 0.012 (95% CI - 0.014 to - 0.011; p < 0.001) fewer monthly hospital admissions, 0.017 (95% CI - 0.019 to - 0.016; p < 0.001) fewer monthly ED visits, and 0.399 (95% CI 0.375 to 0.423; p < 0.001) more monthly outpatient encounters. Patients receiving NFFCCM services had lower MACE event rates of 7.4% (95% CI 7.1 to 7.8%; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality rate of 7.8% (95% CI 7.4 to 8.1%; p < 0.001), and heart failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.5%; p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that reimbursement for NFFCCM was associated with the shifting high-cost utilization to lower-cost primary health care settings among patients with diabetes in Louisiana.

An exploratory analysis of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL over a lifetime horizon using the BRAVO diabetes model.

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: Costs and outcomes for Gla-300 versus Gla-100 from a US healthcare payer perspective were assessed using the BRAVO diabetes model. Baseline clinical data were derived from EDITION-3, a 12-month randomized controlled trial comparing Gla-300 with Gla-100 in insulin-naïve adults with inadequately controlled T2D on OADs. Treatment costs were calculated based on doses observed in EDITION-3 and 2020 US net prices, while costs for complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs ($US) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $353,441 and $352,858 for individuals receiving Gla-300 and Gla-100 respectively; insulin costs were $52,613 and $50,818. Gla-300 was associated with a gain of 8.97 QALYs and 21.12 life-years, while Gla-100 was associated with a gain of 8.89 QALYs and 21.07 life-years. This resulted in an ICER of $7522/QALY gained for Gla-300 versus Gla-100. Thus, Gla-300 was cost-effective versus Gla-100 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Compared with Gla-100, Gla-300 provided a net monetary benefit of $3290. Scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 may be a cost-effective treatment option versus Gla-100 over a lifetime horizon for insulin-naïve people in the United States with T2D inadequately controlled on OADs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a digital diabetes-prevention programme versus an in-person diabetes-prevention programme in people with prediabetes in the United States.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a digital diabetes prevention programme (d-DPP) compared with a diabetes prevention programme (DPP) for preventing type 2 diabetes (T2D) in individuals with prediabetes in the United States. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was constructed, simulating a 10-year period starting at the age of 45 years, with a societal and healthcare sector perspective. The effectiveness of the d-DPP intervention was evaluated using a meta-analysis, with that of the DPP as the comparator. The initial cycle represented the treatment period, and transition probabilities for the post-treatment period were derived from a long-term lifestyle intervention meta-analysis. The onset of T2D complications was estimated using microsimulation. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on health utility measured by short form (SF)-12 scores, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained was applied. RESULTS: The d-DPP intervention resulted in cost savings of $3,672 from a societal perspective and $2,990 from a healthcare sector perspective and a gain of 0.08 QALYs compared with the DPP. The dropout rate was identified as a significant factor influencing the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the d-DPP intervention was preferred in 85.8% in the societal perspective and 85.2% in the healthcare sector perspective. CONCLUSIONS: The d-DPP is a cost-effective alternative to in-person lifestyle interventions for preventing the development of T2D among individuals with prediabetes in the United States.

Telehealth use and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic on glycaemic control and other clinical outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We used electronic health records from the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet) database for patients with type 2 diabetes who had telehealth visits and those who only received in-person care during the pandemic. A quasi-experimental method of difference-in-difference with propensity-score weighting was implemented to mitigate selection bias and to control for observed factors related to telehealth use. Outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and other clinical measures (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, blood pressure [BP], and body mass index [BMI]). RESULTS: Patients using telehealth had better HbA1c control compared to those receiving in-person care only during the pandemic. The telehealth group saw a significant average decrease of 0.146% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.178% to -0.1145%; P < 0.001) in HbA1c levels over time. The proportion of patients with average HbA1c levels >7% decreased by 0.023 (95% CI -0.034, -0.011; P < 0.001) in the treatment group relative to the comparison group. Modest benefits in the control of LDL cholesterol levels, diastolic BP, and BMI were found in association with telehealth use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that telehealth services contributed to better glycaemic control and management of other clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes during the pandemic. Factors unmeasured in this study would need to be further explored to better understand the impact of telehealth.

5-Year simulation of diabetes-related complications in people treated with tirzepatide or semaglutide versus insulin glargine.

AIM: This study compared the 5-year incidence rate of macrovascular and microvascular complications for tirzepatide, semaglutide and insulin glargine in individuals with type 2 diabetes, using the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) diabetes simulation model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a 5-year SURPASS-2 trial extrapolation, with an insulin glargine arm added as an additional comparator. The 1-year treatment effects of tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg), semaglutide (1 mg) and insulin glargine on glycated haemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein and body weights were obtained from the SUSTAIN-4 and SURPASS-2 trials. We used the BRAVO model to predict 5-year complications for each study arm under two scenarios: the 1-year treatment effects persisted (optimistic) or diminished to none in 5 years (conservative). RESULTS: When compared with insulin glargine, we projected a 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events [rate ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.67] and microvascular composite (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70) with 15 mg tirzepatide, and 5-year risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and microvascular composite (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) with semaglutide (1 mg) under an optimistic scenario. Lower doses of tirzepatide also had similar, albeit smaller benefits. Treatment effects for tirzepatide and semaglutide were smaller but still significantly higher than insulin glargine under a conservative scenario. The 5-year risk reduction in diabetes-related complication events and mortality for the 15 mg tirzepatide compared with insulin glargine ranged from 49% to 10% under an optimistic scenario, which was reduced by 17%-33% when a conservative scenario was assumed. CONCLUSION: With the use of the BRAVO diabetes model, tirzepatide and semaglutide exhibited potential to reduce the risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with insulin glargine in a 5-year window. Based on the current modelling assumptions, tirzepatide (15 mg) may potentially outperform semaglutide (1 mg). While the BRAVO model offered insights, the long-term cardiovascular benefit of tirzepatide should be further validated in a prospective clinical trial.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and the risk of Parkinson disease in real-world patients with type 2 diabetes.

IMPORTANCE: Diabetes increases the risk of Parkinson disease (PD). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, a new glucose-lowering therapeutic class, have shown neuroprotective effects in mechanistic studies. However, the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and PD risk in real-world populations with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of PD in older populations with T2D. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort analysis used Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2020 to identify fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥65 years diagnosed with T2D and without pre-existing PD. EXPOSURES: The initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was compared with that of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcome was the first incident PD ever since the date initiating either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a DPP4 inhibitor. We employed a 1:1 propensity score matching to balance the baseline covariates between treatment groups, including sociodemographics, comorbidities and co-medications. We applied Cox regression models to assess the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP4 inhibitors on incident PD. RESULTS: Of 89 330 eligible Medicare beneficiaries (mean age: 75 ± 7 years, 52% women), 0.6% (n = 537) had incident PD over the follow-up. After 1:1 propensity matching, the PD incidence was 2.5 and 3.5 events per 1000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and DPP4 inhibitor group, respectively. The SGLT2 inhibitor group was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident PD than the DPP4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio: 0.70 [95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.89]). There is a potential trend that the risk reduction in incident PD was profound in non-Hispanic Black individuals and insulin users. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Compared to DPP4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a significantly lower risk of incident PD in older populations with T2D.

Some patients with type 2 diabetes may benefit from intensive glycaemic and blood pressure control: A post-hoc machine learning analysis of ACCORD trial data.

AIM: The action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed a neutral average treatment effect of intensive blood glucose and blood pressure (BP) controls in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Yet, treatment effects across patient subgroups have not been well understood. We aimed to identify patient subgroups that might benefit from intensive glucose or BP controls for preventing MACE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a post-hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, we included 10 251 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We applied causal forest and causal tree models to identify participant characteristics that modify the efficacy of intensive glucose or BP controls from 68 candidate variables (demographics, comorbidities, medications and biomarkers) at the baseline. The exposure was (a) intensive versus standard glucose control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <6.0% vs. 7.0%-7.9%], and (b) intensive versus standard BP control (systolic BP <120 vs. <140 mmHg). The primary outcome was MACE. RESULTS: Compared with standard glucose control, intensive one reduced MACE in those with baseline HbA1c <8.5% [relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.93] and those with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥106 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99). Intensive BP control reduced MACE in those with normal high-density lipoprotein levels (women >55 mg/dl, men >45 mg/dl; RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.74). Risk reductions were not significant in other patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive glucose and BP control and could provide biomarkers for future clinical trials to identify more precise HbA1c and BP treatment goals for individualized medicine.

Renal function as an effect modifier of intensive glucose control in delaying cognitive function decline among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A revisit to the ACCORD MIND trial.

AIM: Dysglycaemia accelerates cognitive decline. Intensive glucose control may help delay or prevent cognitive function decline (CFD). We aimed to determine how patient characteristics influence the effect of intensive glucose control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <6.0%] on delaying CFD in people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of 2977 type 2 diabetes participants from the ACCORD MIND trial, we applied the causal forest and causal tree algorithms to identify the effect modifier of intensive glucose control in delaying CFD from 68 variables (demographics, disease history, medications, vitals and baseline biomarkers). The exposure was intensive versus standard glucose control (HbA1c <6.0% vs. 7.0%-7.9%). The main outcome was cognitive function changes from baseline to the 40th month follow-up, which were evaluated using the digit symbol substitution test, Rey auditory verbal learning test, mini-mental state examination and Stroop test. We used Cohen's d, a measure of standardized difference, to quantify the effect size of intensive glucose control on delaying CFD. RESULTS: Among all the baseline characteristics, renal function was the most significant effect modifier. Participants with urinary albumin levels <0.4 mg/dl [absolute function change (AFC): 0.51 in mini-mental state examination, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04, 0.98, Cohen's d: 0.25] had slower CFD with intensive glucose control. Patients with preserved renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate between 60 and 90 ml/min/1.73 m2) were associated with small benefits (AFC: 1.28 in Stroop, 95% CI: 0.28, 2.27, Cohen's d: 0.12) when undergoing intensive glucose control. Conversely, participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (AFC: -0.57 in the Rey auditory verbal learning test, 95% CI: -1.09, -0.05, Cohen's d: -0.30) exhibited faster CFD when undergoing intensive glucose control. Participants who were <60 years old showed a significant benefit from intensive glucose control in delaying CFD (AFC: 1.08 in the digit symbol substitution test, 95% CI: 0.06, 2.10, Cohen's d: 0.13). All p < .05. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings linked renal function with the benefits of intensive glucose control in delaying CFD, informing personalized HbA1c goals for those with diabetes and at risk of CFD.

Comparative Effectiveness of Team-Based Care With and Without a Clinical Decision Support System for Diabetes Management : A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension are common in persons with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of team-based care with and without a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in controlling glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure (BP) among patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02835287). SETTING: 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China. PATIENTS: 11 132 persons aged 50 years or older with uncontrolled diabetes and comorbid conditions, 5475 receiving team-based care with a CDSS and 5657 receiving team-based care alone. INTERVENTION: Team-based care was delivered by primary care physicians, health coaches, and diabetes specialists in all centers. In addition, a computerized CDSS, which generated individualized treatment recommendations based on clinical guidelines, was implemented in 19 centers delivering team-based care with a CDSS. MEASUREMENTS: Coprimary outcomes were mean reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, and systolic BP over 18 months and the proportion of participants with all 3 risk factors controlled at 18 months. RESULTS: During the 18-month intervention, HbA1c levels, LDL-C levels, and systolic BP significantly decreased by -0.9 percentage point (95% CI, -0.9 to -0.8 percentage point), -0.49 mmol/L (CI, -0.53 to -0.45 mmol/L) (-19.0 mg/dL [CI, -20.4 to -17.5 mg/dL]), and -9.1 mm Hg (CI, -9.9 to -8.3 mm Hg), respectively, in team-based care with a CDSS and by -0.6 percentage point (CI, -0.7 to -0.5 percentage point), -0.32 mmol/L (CI, -0.35 to -0.29 mmol/L) (-12.5 mg/dL [CI, -13.6 to -11.3 mg/dL]), and -7.5 mm Hg (CI, -8.4 to -6.6 mm Hg), respectively, in team-based care alone. Net differences were -0.2 percentage point (CI, -0.3 to -0.1 percentage point) for HbA1c level, -0.17 mmol/L (CI, -0.21 to -0.12 mmol/L) (-6.5 mg/dL [CI, -8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL]) for LDL-C level, and -1.5 mm Hg (CI, -2.8 to -0.3 mm Hg) for systolic BP. The proportion of patients with controlled HbA1c, LDL-C, and systolic BP was 16.9% (CI, 15.7% to 18.2%) in team-based care with a CDSS and 13.0% (CI, 11.7% to 14.3%) in team-based care alone. LIMITATION: There was no usual care control, and clinical outcome assessors were unblinded; the analysis did not account for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Compared with team-based care alone, team-based care with a CDSS significantly reduced cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes, but the effect was modest. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Xiamen Municipal Health Commission.

Optimizing Telehealth for Diabetes Management in the Deep South of the United States: Qualitative Study of Barriers and Facilitators on the Patient and Clinician Journey.

BACKGROUND: The Deep South of the United States, and Louisiana in particular, bears a greater burden of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease compared with other regions in the United States. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a substantial increase in telehealth visits for diabetes management to protect the safety of patients. Although there have been significant advancements in telehealth and chronic disease management, little is known about patient and provider perspectives on the challenges and benefits of telehealth visits among people living with diabetes and providers who care for patients with diabetes in Louisiana. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore barriers, facilitators, challenges, and benefits to telehealth for patients with diabetes and health care providers as they transitioned from in-person to remote care during the early COVID-19 pandemic to understand potential optimization. METHODS: A total of 24 semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 patients living with diabetes and 6 clinicians who served patients with diabetes to explore their experiences and perceptions of telehealth services for diabetes care. Approximately half of the participants identified as Black or African American, half as White, and 75% as female. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by experienced qualitative researchers using inductive and deductive techniques. A narrative, descriptive approach to the patient and clinician journey framed the study, including the development of internal journey maps, and reflexive thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts, with special attention to barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: In total, 5 themes illustrated barriers and facilitators for participants: convenience, safety, and comfort are the benefits of telehealth for patients and clinicians; yet telehealth and in-person visits are valued differently; the convenience of telehealth may have a downside; technology acts as a double-edged sword; and managing expectations and efficiency of the visit experience was an important factor. Individual experiences varied in relation to several factors, including comfort level and access to technology, health system protocols for providing telemedicine, and level of diabetes control among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for optimization include providing support to help guide and inform patients about what to expect and how to prepare for telehealth visits as well as allowing clinicians to schedule telehealth and in-person visits during discrete blocks of time to improve efficiency. Further research should address how hybrid models of telehealth and in-person care may differentially impact health outcomes for patients with diabetes, particularly for people with multiple chronic conditions in settings where access to technology and connectivity is not optimal.

Predictors of Telehealth Utilization and Subsequent Inpatient Stays and Emergency Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence from Louisiana.

Objective: To understand which types of Medicare patients with diabetes disproportionately used telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and how their characteristics mediated their inpatient and emergency department (ED) utilization. Methods: Logistic regression analyses were used to measure the associations between patient characteristics and telehealth utilization using electronic health records among Medicare patients with diabetes (n = 31,654). Propensity score matching was used to examine the relative impact of telehealth use in conjunction with race, ethnicity, and age on inpatient and ED outcomes. Results: Telehealth was associated with age (75-84 vs. 65-74; odds ratio [OR] = 0.810, p < 0.01), gender (female: OR = 1.148, p < 0.01), and chronic diseases (e.g., lung disease: OR = 1.142; p < 0.01). Black patients using telehealth were less likely to visit the ED (estimate = -0.018; p = 0.08), whereas younger beneficiaries using telehealth were less likely to experience an inpatient stay (estimate = -0.017; p = 0.06). Conclusions: Telehealth expansion particularly benefited the clinically vulnerable but saw uneven use and uneven benefit along sociodemographic lines. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03136471.

Maternal Health Legislation Enacted in Three Southeastern States in the United States Between 2018-2023: Policy Surveillance.

Background: Maternal mortality and morbidity rates in the Southeastern states of the US are among the highest in the nation. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana are ranked first, second and fifth, respectively, in maternal mortality. This retrospective policy surveillance systematically documents legislation enacted to address maternal health disparities and ameliorate maternal health. Methods: The Maternal and Child Health Legislative Database of the National Conference of State Legislators was searched for all legislation relating to maternal health in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi between 2018-2023. Two reviewers independently identified the laws passed by year and state and cross-checked to verify results. The legislative screening process is documented on a modified PRISMA flow diagram. Data extracted included the specific maternal health population targeted, the general health area addressed by the bill, and the directive of the bill. Results: 126 pieces of legislation were identified using the database (41 AR, 12 MS, and 73 LA). There were no duplicates identified; 2 laws were identified outside of the database (1 AR, 1 MS). All 128 legislation titles and summaries were screened and laws pertaining to issues other than maternal health were excluded (28 AR, 9 MS, and 48 LA). 43 full text bills were retrieved and reviewed in their entirety to assess eligibility for inclusion. 40 pieces of legislation were included (11 AR, 4 MS, and 25 LA) in this policy surveillance. Discussion: Louisiana enacted the most laws targeting and addressing maternal health, while Mississippi enacted the least. The legislation enacted addresses a broad range of health aspects, such as maternal mental health, incarcerated pregnant population reproductive health, and postpartum Medicaid coverage extension. Together with the task forces, committees, and study commissions created, the legislation enacted has the potential to address current inequities and improve maternal health outcomes in this vulnerable population by increasing access to and/or utilization of care, extending duration and/or type of evidence-based care available, and decreasing racial disparities in maternal health with the eventual goal of rooting out preventable morbidity and mortality.

Telehealth and Medicare Type 2 Diabetes Care Outcomes: Evidence From Louisiana.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services broadened access to telehealth. This provided an opportunity to test whether diabetes, a risk factor for COVID-19 severity, can be managed with telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the impacts of telehealth on diabetes control. RESEARCH DESIGN: A doubly robust estimator combined a propensity score-weighting strategy with regression controls for baseline characteristics using electronic medical records data to compare outcomes in patients with and without telehealth care. Matching on preperiod trajectories in outpatient visits and weighting by odds were used to ensure comparability between comparators. SUBJECTS: Medicare patients with type 2 diabetes in Louisiana between March 2018 and February 2021 (9530 patients with a COVID-19 era telehealth visit and 20,666 patients without one). MEASURES: Primary outcomes were glycemic levels and control [ie, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) under 7%]. Secondary outcomes included alternative HbA1c measures, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions. RESULTS: Telehealth was associated with lower pandemic era mean A1c values [estimate=-0.080%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.111% to -0.048%], which translated to an increased likelihood of having HbA1c in control (estimate=0.013; 95% CI: 0.002-0.024; P<0.023). Hispanic telehealth users had relatively higher COVID-19 era HbA1c levels (estimate=0.125; 95% CI: 0.044-0.205; P<0.003). Telehealth was not associated with differences in the likelihood of having an emergency department visits (estimate=-0.003; 95% CI: -0.011 to 0.004; P<0.351) but was associated with more the likelihood of having an inpatient admission (estimate=0.024; 95% CI: 0.018-0.031; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Telehealth use among Medicare patients with type 2 diabetes in Louisiana stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with relatively improved glycemic control.

The Impact of Reimbursement for Non-Face-to-Face Chronic Care Management on Comprehensive Metabolic Biomarkers Among Multimorbid Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

AIMS: We evaluated the impact of reimbursement for non-face-to-face chronic care management (NFFCCM) on comprehensive metabolic risk factors among multimorbid Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes in Louisiana. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We implemented a propensity score method to obtain comparable treatment (n=1501 with NFFCCM) and control (n=17,524 without NFFCCM) groups. Patients with type 2 diabetes were extracted from the electronic health records stored in REACHnet. The study period was from 2013 to February 2020. The comprehensive metabolic risk factors included the primary outcome of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (as the primary outcome) and the secondary outcomes of body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. RESULTS: Receiving any NFFCCM was associated with improvement in all outcomes measures: a reduction in HbA1c of 0.063% (95% CI: 0.031%-0.094%; P <0.001), a reduction in BMI of 0.155 kg/m 2 (95% CI: 0.029-0.282 kg/m 2 ; P =0.016), a reduction in systolic BP of 0.816 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.469-1.163 mm Hg; P <0.001), and a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 1.779 mg/dL (95% CI: 0.988 2.570 mg/dL; P <0.001). Compared with the control group, the treatment group had 1.6% more patients with HbA1c <7% (95% CI: 0.3%-2.9%; P =0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes in Louisiana receiving NFFCCM experienced better control of HbA1c, BMI, BP, and low-density lipoprotein outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model.

AIMS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sub-optimally controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: The BRAVO diabetes model was used to assess costs and outcomes for once-daily Gla-300 versus once-daily IDeg-100 from a US healthcare sector perspective. Baseline clinical data were based on BRIGHT, a 24-week, non-inferiority, randomised control trial comparing Gla-300 and IDeg-100 in adults with T2D sub-optimally controlled with OADs (with or without glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). Treatment costs were based on doses observed in BRIGHT as well as net prices. Costs associated with complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Overall lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $327,904 and $330,154 for people receiving Gla-300 and IDeg-100, respectively; insulin costs were $43,477 and $44,367, respectively. People receiving Gla-300 gained 8.024 QALYs and 18.55 life-years, while people receiving IDeg-100 gained 7.997 QALYs and 18.52 life-years. Because Gla-300 was associated with a cost-saving of $2250 and 0.027 additional QALYs, it was considered to be dominant compared with IDeg-100. Results of the scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results. CONCLUSION: Gla-300 was the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg-100 based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results remained robust against a wide range of alternative assumptions on key parameters.

A prediction model on incident chronic kidney disease among individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: Early identification of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) in individuals with diabetes may help improve patients' clinical outcomes. This study aimed to develop a prediction equation for incident CKD among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A time-varying Cox model was applied to data from the ACCORD trial to predict the risk of incident CKD. A list of candidate variables was chosen based on literature reviews and experts' consultations, including demographic characteristics, vitals, laboratory results, medical history, drug use and health care utilization. Model performance was evaluated. Decomposition analysis was conducted, and external validation was performed. RESULTS: In total, 6006 patients with diabetes free of CKD were included, with a median follow-up of 3 years and 2257 events. The risk model included age at T2D diagnosed, smoking status, body mass index, high-density lipoprotein, very-low-density lipoprotein, alanine aminotransferase, estimated glomerular filtration rate, urine albumin-creatinine ratio, hypoglycaemia, retinopathy, congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease history, antihyperlipidaemic drug use, antihypertensive drug use and hospitalization. The urine albumin-creatinine ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate and congestive heart failure were the top three factors that contributed most to the incident CKD prediction. The model showed acceptable discrimination [C-statistic: 0.772 (95% CI 0.767-0.805)] and calibration [Brier Score: 0.0504 (95% CI 0.0477-0.0531)] in the Harmony Outcomes Trial. CONCLUSION: Incident CKD prediction among individuals with T2D was developed and validated for use in decision support of CKD prevention.

Trends and disparities in telehealth use among Louisiana Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To examine trends in telehealth use among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes (T2D) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and identify factors related to telehealth use. METHODS: We compared monthly proportions of outpatient visits delivered by telehealth by race/ethnicity, geography and age among Louisiana Medicaid beneficiaries with T2D using claims data from January 2018 to August 2021. We also examined the changes in provider types delivering telehealth. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify individual level and zip code-level factors associated with telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The monthly proportion of outpatient visits delivered by telehealth was low (< 1%) before the pandemic, spiked in April 2020 (> 15%), then remained at approximately 5%. Telehealth use varied across different racial/ethnic groups, geography and age groups over years. Older beneficiaries were less probable to use telehealth during the pandemic (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.874, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.831-0.919). Females used more telehealth than males (AOR = 1.359, 95% CI: 1.298-1.423). Black beneficiaries used more telehealth than White beneficiaries (AOR = 1.067, 95% CI: 1.000-1.139). More telehealth services were used by Medicaid beneficiaries who were living in urban areas, with more primary care utilization, and with more chronic conditions at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We found disparities in the uptake of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, but they might have been narrowed for some groups (Hispanic and rural) among Louisiana Medicaid beneficiaries with T2D. Future studies should explore strategies to improve access to telehealth services and reduce related disparities for the low-income population.

The Impact of Reimbursement for Non-Face-to-Face Chronic Care Management on Health Utilization Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Louisiana.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of reimbursement for non-face-to-face chronic care management (NFFCCM) on healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes in Louisiana. METHODS: We implemented group-based trajectory balancing and propensity score matching to obtain comparable treatment (with NFFCCM) and control (without NFFCCM) groups at baseline. Patients with diabetes with Medicare as their primary payer at baseline were extracted using electronic health records of 3 health systems from Research Action for Health Network, a Clinical Research Network. The study period is from 2013 to early 2020. Our outcomes include general healthcare utilization (outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient encounters) and health utilization related to diabetic complications. We tested each of these outcomes according to multiple treatment definitions and different subgroups. RESULTS: Receiving any NFFCCM was associated with an increase in outpatient visits of 657 (95% confidence interval [CI] 626-687; P < .001) per 1000 patients per month, a decrease in inpatient admissions of 5 (95% CI 2-7; P < .001) per 1000 patients per month, and a decrease in emergency department visits of 4 (95% CI 1-7; P = .005) per 1000 patients per month after 24-month follow-up from initial NFFCCM encounter. Both complex and noncomplex NFFCCM significantly increased visits to outpatient services and inpatient admissions per month. Receiving NFFCCM has a dose-response association with increasing outpatient visits per month. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes in Louisiana who received NFFCCM had more low-cost primary healthcare and less high-cost healthcare utilization in general. The cost savings of NFFCCM in diabetes management could be further explored in the future.