Understanding Prediabetes in a Medicare Advantage Population Using Data Adaptive Techniques.

The objective was to identify individuals with undiagnosed prediabetes from administrative data using adaptive techniques. The data source was a national Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan administrative data set. A retrospective, cross-sectional study developed and evaluated data adaptive logistic regression, decision tree, neural network, and ensemble predictive models for metabolic syndrome and prediabetes using 3 mutually exclusive cohorts (N = 279,903). The misclassification rate (MCR), average squared error (ASE), c-statistics, sensitivity (SN), and false positive (FP) rates were compared to select the final predictive models. MAPD individuals with continuous enrollment from 2013 to 2014 were included. Metabolic syndrome and prediabetes were defined using clinical guidelines, diagnosis, and laboratory data. A total of 512 variables identified through subject matter expertise in addition to utilizing all data available were evaluated for the modeling. The ensemble model demonstrated better discrimination (c-statistics, MCR, and ASE of 0.83, 0.24, and 0.16, respectively), high SN, and low FP rate in predicting metabolic syndrome than the individual data adaptive modeling techniques. Logistic regression demonstrated better discrimination (c-statistics, MCR, and ASE of 0.67, 0.13, and 0.11 respectively), high SN, and low FP rate in predicting prediabetes than the other adaptive modeling techniques or ensemble methods. The scored data predicted prediabetes in 44% of the MAPD population, which is comparable to 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey prediabetes rates of 41%. The logistic regression model demonstrated good performance in predicting undiagnosed prediabetes in MAPD individuals.

Predictors of all-cause 30 day readmission among Medicare patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Readmission is costly among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans; identifying high-risk patients is necessary for targeting reduction programs. The objective of this study was to develop a claims-based algorithm to predict all-cause 30 day readmission among patients with T2DM. METHODS: This study used administrative data from 1 January 2012 through 31 January 2014. The cohort included hospitalized T2DM patients, aged 18-90 with ≥12 months' continuous enrollment before an unplanned hospital admission and ≥1 month of enrollment post-discharge, excluding patients in long-term care >30 days pre-index. Multivariate logistic regression predicted the likelihood of readmission following hospitalization in 2013. The analytic file was randomly split into training and test datasets to build and validate the model. Candidate variables included physician and patient demographics, baseline clinical conditions, and healthcare utilization metrics. Clinical conditions were classified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project clinical classification system for ICD-9-CM. RESULTS: Of 63,237 individuals, 17.1% experienced a readmission. Of nearly 200 candidate variables, 14 were predictors of readmission, including total cumulative number of days for inpatient stays and the number of emergency department visits in the baseline period. Male gender, older age, and certain comorbidities were associated with higher likelihood of readmission. The final model demonstrated good discriminant ability (c-statistic = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence that certain patient characteristics and healthcare utilization are predictive of readmission. An algorithm with good discriminant ability was developed which could be used to target readmission reduction programs. Physician gender, specialty, and ownership status did not appear to influence the likelihood of readmission.

A Historical Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Diabetes Quality Measure Attainment on Outcomes in Medicare Advantage Members.

The objective of this study was to assess achievement of 4 diabetes mellitus (DM)-related quality measures (QMs) and examine the relationship between QM attainment, concurrent health care costs, and DM complications over 1 year by conducting a retrospective analysis of claims data for Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan members with DM. Claims and member-level quality data were used to assess QM achievement, concurrent health care costs, and presence of new or worsening DM complications during the QM year. Multivariable regression models were used to examine the relationship between QM achievement and outcome measures controlling for potentially confounding baseline characteristics. QM attainment rates ranged from 54.2% for DM Treatment measure to 83.4% for Cholesterol Screening measure. Odds of new or worsening complications were greater for members who did not meet the Blood Sugar Controlled performance goal (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, P < 0.001), DM Treatment goal (OR: 1.40, P < 0.001), or Cholesterol Screening goal (OR: 1.32, P < 0.001). Failure to attain the DM Medication Adherence goal was associated with lower odds of new or worsening complications (OR: 0.94, P < 0.001). In the regression models, all-cause health care costs were greater for members who achieved the Blood Sugar Controlled quality goal (P < 0.001), but lower for members who attained DM Treatment (P < 0.001) and low-density lipoprotein Cholesterol Screening goals (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant relationship between attaining the DM Medication Adherence measure and all-cause costs. Achievement rates for individual QMs varied across the study population and relationships between QM attainment, health care costs, and DM complications during the QM measurement year were mixed.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients' Healthcare Costs Related to Inpatient Hospitalizations: A Retrospective Administrative Claims Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes-related healthcare costs are increasing in the United States, with inpatient hospitalization the largest component of medical expenditures. The aims of this study were to characterize hospitalized type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, understand the relationship between hospitalization and healthcare costs, and explore treatment modification after inpatient hospitalization. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of Humana Medicare Advantage and commercial members with T2DM was conducted. T2DM members were identified and assigned to three groups: (1) inpatient hospitalization (IPH) without a 30-day readmit (IPH group); (2) IPH with a 30-day readmission (IPH readmission group); and, (3) matched non-IPH group. Demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities and healthcare costs were measured based on enrollment data and claims. Descriptive statistics were used and the relationship between IPH and costs was assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 15,555 IPH patients, 1757 IPH readmission patients, and 17,312 matched non-IPH patients were included in the study. The IPH readmission group had the highest adjusted mean all-cause total costs ($76,806), followed by the IPH group ($42,011), and the non-IPH group ($9624). A similar trend was observed for adjusted all-cause mean medical and pharmacy costs. DM-related total healthcare costs were highest for the IPH readmission group ($13,714), followed by the IPH group ($7477), and non-IPH group ($1620). While overall therapy modification (discontinuation, addition, switch) was low, T2DM patients with an IPH (with or without a readmission) had greater rates of therapy modification relative to the non-IPH patients. CONCLUSION: Adjusted all-cause and DM-related total costs were greatest for IPH readmission patients. Rates of treatment modification within 10 days of discharge after IPH were generally low. Identifying T2DM patients at high risk of readmission and employing methods to decrease that risk during the index hospitalization could have a significant impact on health system costs. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Usability and preference assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe in people with diabetes, physicians and nurses.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, crossover study assessed the preference and usability of a new prefilled insulin pen, FlexTouch® (FT) versus vial and syringe (V&S). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 60), and physicians (n = 30) and nurses (n = 30) with experience of diabetes management performed test injections with FT and V&S, and then answered written questions on ease of use and preference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was preference for FT versus V&S. Secondary end points included perceptions of device handling. RESULTS: Significantly more respondents preferred using FT (88%) to V&S (5%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'), found FT (91%) easier to use than V&S (6%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference') and would recommend FT (91%) over V&S (3%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'). FT received better ratings than V&S for ease of use, holding the device stable when injecting, depressing the push-button/plunger and reading the dose scale (all p < 0.001). Ratings for confidence in correct insulin delivery and controlling blood sugar were also significantly better with FT (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FT was preferred to V&S for insulin delivery in this comparative analysis. The features of FT may improve the experience of insulin injection compared with V&S for a wide range of people with diabetes.

A comparison of twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 and once-daily insulin glargine in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral therapy: a randomized, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with insulin (glargine) in type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In a 24-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin (glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn) + oral antidiabetic drugs were randomly assigned to twice-daily BIAsp 30 + metformin or once-daily glargine + metformin + secretagogues (secretagogues were discontinued in the BIAsp 30 arm). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the BIAsp 30 group and 143 patients were randomly assigned to the glargine group. Of 280 patients randomized, 229 (81.8%) completed the study. End-of-trial hemoglobin A1c reductions were -1.3% (BIAsp 30) vs -1.2% (glargine) (treatment difference: 95% confidence interval, -0.06 [-0.32 to 0.20]; P = .657). Of patients taking BIAsp 30, 27.3% reached a hemoglobin A1c level <7.0% compared with 22.0% of patients taking glargine (treatment difference: P = .388). Glucose increment averaged over 3 meals was lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (treatment difference: -17.8 mg/dL, P = .001). Fasting plasma glucose reductions from baseline were -13.8 mg/dL (BIAsp 30) vs -42.5 mg/dL (glargine) (P = .0002). Final minor hypoglycemia rate, insulin dose, and weight change were higher in the BIAsp 30 arm (6.5 vs 3.4 events/patient per year, P<.05; 1.19 vs 0.63 U/kg; and 3.1 vs 1.4 kg, P = .0004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite not receiving secretagogues, patients taking BIAsp 30 + metformin achieved similar hemoglobin A1c levels and lower postprandial plasma glucose compared with those receiving glargine + metformin + secretagogues. The large improvement in the glargine group suggests the patients were not true basal failures at randomization. While switching to BIAsp 30 improves glycemic control in this patient population, remaining on basal insulin and optimizing the dose may be equally effective in the short term.

Assessment of adherence and healthcare costs of insulin device (FlexPen) versus conventional vial/syringe.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is difficult to manage and treatment involves significant lifestyle adjustments. Unlike the traditional method of insulin administration via the vial and syringe method, insulin pens might be perceived as less cumbersome and have potential to significantly increase patient adherence. METHODS: Using "real world" data, we examined the differences in adherence and costs between diabetic patients using an insulin FlexPen (Novo Nordisk Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA) and those using traditional vial and syringe administration. Using a retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data between the years 2003 and 2008, we examined patients in the FlexPen cohort and analog vial cohort. Propensity score matching was used to match these cohorts (n=532 in each) according to baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Adjusted mean medication possession ratio when switched to FlexPen improved by 22 percentage points versus 13 percentage points when continuing to use vials (P=0.001). Diabetes-related healthcare costs when switched to FlexPen versus continuing on to use vials ($3970 vs. $4838, respectively, P=0.9368) and total healthcare costs ($13,214 vs. $13,212, respectively, P=0.9473) were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Without significant addition to the cost, insulin administration with FlexPen is associated with an improved adherence among patients who switched from vial-based insulin administration.