Did the 2015 USPSTF Abnormal Blood Glucose Recommendations Change Clinician Attitudes or Behaviors? A Mixed-Method Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised clinical recommendations to more broadly recommend abnormal blood glucose screening and more clearly recommend referral to behavioral interventions for adults with prediabetes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the 2015 USPSTF recommendation changes on abnormal blood glucose screening and referral to behavioral interventions, and to examine physicians' perceptions of the revised recommendation. DESIGN: We utilized a sequential, dependent mixed-methods triangulation design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,444 patients meeting USPSTF abnormal blood glucose screening criteria within 15 health system-affiliated primary care practices and 20 primary care physicians in North Carolina. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed monthly abnormal blood glucose screening rate and monthly referral rate to behavioral interventions. To estimate trend changes in outcomes, we used segmented linear regression analysis of interrupted time-series data. We gathered physicians' perspectives on the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation including awareness of, agreement with, adoption of, and adherence to the recommendation. To analyze qualitative data, we used directed content analysis. KEY RESULTS: There was a slight significant change in trend in abnormal blood glucose screening rates post-recommendation. There was a slight, statistically significant decrease in referral rates to behavioral interventions post-recommendation. Physicians were generally unaware of the revisions to the 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose recommendation; however, once the recommendations were described, physicians agreed with the screening recommendation but felt that the behavioral intervention referral recommendation was hard to implement. CONCLUSION: The 2015 USPSTF abnormal blood glucose guideline had little to no effect on abnormal blood glucose screening or referral to behavioral interventions in North Carolina practices. Potential interventions to improve these rates could include clinical decision tools embedded in the electronic health record and better referral systems for community-based diabetes prevention programs.

Race and gender differences in abnormal blood glucose screening and clinician response to prediabetes: A mixed-methods assessment.

The projected three-fold increase in diabetes burden by 2060 in the United States will affect certain race and gender groups disproportionately. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess differences in prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes by patient race and gender. We utilized data from 18,742 patients seen between 11/1/15 and 4/30/17 who met criteria for blood glucose screening by the 2015 US Preventive Service Task Force recommendation and had at least one visit to a primary care practice within a large, academic health system located in North Carolina. We utilized generalized estimating equations with logistic regression to assess race and gender differences in two outcomes: prediabetes screening and clinician response to prediabetes. We conducted twenty in-depth interviews (October 2018-May 2019) with physicians to assess their approach to screening for and treating prediabetes. Black patients had 11% higher odds (95% CI:1.02-1.20) of being screened for prediabetes than White patients. Men had 19% higher odds (95% CI:1.09-1.30) of being screened for prediabetes than women. There were no significant differences in clinician response to prediabetes by patient race or gender. Qualitatively, physicians reported a non-systematic approach to prediabetes screening and follow-up care related to: 1) System-level barriers to screening and treatment; 2) Implicit bias; 3) Patient factors; and 4) Physician preferences for prediabetes treatment. Targeted risk-based screening for prediabetes along with increased treatment for prediabetes are critical for preventing diabetes and reducing diabetes-related disparities.

Implementation and Evaluation of Shared Medical Appointments for Type 2 Diabetes at a Free, Student-Run Clinic in Alamance County, North Carolina.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a significant problem among uninsured patients. Shared medical appointments (SMA) have been shown to improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that the SMA model could be adapted for a non-profit clinic in North Carolina that serves uninsured patients with diabetes that have incomes at/below 150% of the federal poverty line. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We implemented and sustained a patient-driven, student-led SMA model that incorporated the monthly rotations of students, physician assistant, and undergraduate students as well as pharmacy residents and an endocrinologist who collectively provide diabetes care at the free clinic. SMA groups are 'open' cohorts and include 4-12 patients scheduled for the monthly clinic. Teams of transdisciplinary trainees work together to perform triage, medication reconciliation, brief history, and physical exam, after which patients participate in the SMA. The endocrinologist evaluates SMA patients individually during and after the visit. RESULTS: Between November 2015 and January 2017, we enrolled 29 patients in SMA. There was high variability in HbA1c at baseline. Among eight type 2 diabetes patients seen in endocrine clinic and with complete data one year before and after SMA implementation, the mean (SD) HbA1c before SMA was 9.7% ± 1.7% (83±7 mmol/ mol); mean HbA1c after SMA was 9.2% ± 1.8% (77 ± 8mmol/mol). The median HbA1c before SMA was 9.5% (80 mmol/mol); median HbA1c after SMA was 8.9% (74 mmol/mol). Overall, 6/8 patients showed decreased HbA1c after SMA although there was variability between individuals in response of glycemic control to SMA. SMA increased clinic efficiency and offered an opportunity to integrate transdisciplinary trainees. Trainees gain experience with novel models of care and the complexities of the patient experience of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: We hope this observation encourages others to implement such programs to enhance the evidence-base for SMA to address health disparities and increase the quality of free diabetes care.

Determinants of adherence to diabetes medications: findings from a large pharmacy claims database.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with diabetes typically take multiple medications for hyperglycemia, diabetes-associated conditions, and other comorbidities. Medication adherence is associated with improved outcomes, including reduced health care costs, hospitalization, and mortality. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a large pharmacy claims database to examine patient, medication, and prescriber factors associated with adherence to antidiabetic medications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We extracted data on a cohort of >200,000 patients who were treated for diabetes with noninsulin medications in the second half of 2010 and had continuous prescription benefits eligibility through 2011. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio ≥ 0.8. We used a modified adherence measure that accounted for switching therapies. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors independently associated with adherence. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of patients were adherent. Adherence was independently associated with older age, male sex, higher education, higher income, use of mail order versus retail pharmacies, primary care versus nonendocrinology specialist prescribers, higher daily total pill burden, and lower out-of-pocket costs. Patients who were new to diabetes therapy were significantly less likely to be adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Several demographic, clinical, and potentially modifiable system-level factors were associated with adherence to antidiabetic medications. Patients typically perceived to be healthy (those who are younger, new to diabetes, and on few other medications) may be at risk for nonadherence. For all patients, efforts to reduce out-of-pocket costs and encourage use of mail order pharmacies may result in higher adherence.

Age at initiation and frequency of screening to detect type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: No clinical trials have assessed the effects or cost-effectiveness of sequential screening strategies to detect new cases of type 2 diabetes. We used a mathematical model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of several screening strategies. METHODS: We used person-specific data from a representative sample of the US population to create a simulated population of 325,000 people aged 30 years without diabetes. We used the Archimedes model to compare eight simulated screening strategies for type 2 diabetes with a no-screening control strategy. Strategies differed in terms of age at initiation and frequency of screening. Once diagnosed, diabetes treatment was simulated in a standard manner. We calculated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, and microvascular complications in addition to quality of life, costs, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). FINDINGS: Compared with no screening, all simulated screening strategies reduced the incidence of myocardial infarction (3-9 events prevented per 1000 people screened) and diabetes-related microvascular complications (3-9 events prevented per 1000 people), and increased the number of QALYs (93-194 undiscounted QALYs) added over 50 years. Most strategies prevented a significant number of simulated deaths (2-5 events per 1000 people). There was little or no effect of screening on incidence of stroke (0-1 event prevented per 1000 people). Five screening strategies had costs per QALY of about US$10,500 or less, whereas costs were much higher for screening started at 45 years of age and repeated every year ($15,509), screening started at 60 years of age and repeated every 3 years ($25,738), or a maximum screening strategy (screening started at 30 years of age and repeated every 6 months; $40,778). Several strategies differed substantially in the number of QALYs gained. Costs per QALY were sensitive to the disutility assigned to the state of having diabetes diagnosed with or without symptoms. INTERPRETATION: In the US population, screening for type 2 diabetes is cost effective when started between the ages of 30 years and 45 years, with screening repeated every 3-5 years. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Bayer HealthCare, [corrected] and Pfizer.