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.

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.

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.

Preoperative Depression Status and 5 Year Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether depression status before metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) influenced 5-year weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Research on the impact of depression on MBS outcomes is inconsistent with few large, long-term studies. METHODS: Data were extracted from 23 health systems on 36,871 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n=16,158) or gastric bypass (RYGB; n=20,713) from 2005-2015. Patients with and without a depression diagnosis in the year before MBS were evaluated for % total weight loss (%TWL), diabetes outcomes, and postsurgical safety/utilization (reoperations, revisions, endoscopy, hospitalizations, mortality) at 1, 3, and 5 years after MBS. RESULTS: 27.1% of SG and 33.0% of RYGB patients had preoperative depression, and they had more medical and psychiatric comorbidities than those without depression. At 5 years of follow-up, those with depression, versus those without depression, had slightly less %TWL after RYGB, but not after SG (between group difference = 0.42%TWL, P = 0.04). However, patients with depression had slightly larger HbA1c improvements after RYGB but not after SG (between group difference = - 0.19, P = 0.04). Baseline depression did not moderate diabetes remission or relapse, reoperations, revision, or mortality across operations; however, baseline depression did moderate the risk of endoscopy and repeat hospitalization across RYGB versus SG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with depression undergoing RYGB and SG had similar weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes to those without depression. The effects of depression were clinically small compared to the choice of operation.

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.

Avenues for Strengthening PCORnet's Capacity to Advance Patient-Centered Economic Outcomes in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR).

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, provides the ability to conduct prospective and observational pragmatic research by leveraging standardized, curated electronic health records data together with patient and stakeholder engagement. PCORnet is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and is composed of 8 Clinical Research Networks that incorporate at total of 79 health system "sites." As the network developed, linkage to commercial health plans, federal insurance claims, disease registries, and other data resources demonstrated the value in extending the networks infrastructure to provide a more complete representation of patient's health and lived experiences. Initially, PCORnet studies avoided direct economic comparative effectiveness as a topic. However, PCORI's authorizing law was amended in 2019 to allow studies to incorporate patient-centered economic outcomes in primary research aims. With PCORI's expanded scope and PCORnet's phase 3 beginning in January 2022, there are opportunities to strengthen the network's ability to support economic patient-centered outcomes research. This commentary will discuss approaches that have been incorporated to date by the network and point to opportunities for the network to incorporate economic variables for analysis, informed by patient and stakeholder perspectives. Topics addressed include: (1) data linkage infrastructure; (2) commercial health plan partnerships; (3) Medicare and Medicaid linkage; (4) health system billing-based benchmarking; (5) area-level measures; (6) individual-level measures; (7) pharmacy benefits and retail pharmacy data; and (8) the importance of transparency and engagement while addressing the biases inherent in linking real-world data sources.

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.

Cultivating community-based participatory research (CBPR) to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: an illustrative example of partnership and topic prioritization in the food services industry.

BACKGROUND: As an illustrative example of COVID-19 pandemic community-based participatory research (CBPR), we describe a community-academic partnership to prioritize future research most important to people experiencing high occupational exposure to COVID-19 - food service workers. Food service workers face key challenges surrounding (1) health and safety precautions, (2) stress and mental health, and (3) the long-term pandemic impact. METHOD: Using CBPR methodologies, academic scientists partnered with community stakeholders to develop the research aims, methods, and measures, and interpret and disseminate results. We conducted a survey, three focus groups, and a rapid qualitative assessment to understand the three areas of concern and prioritize future research. RESULTS: The survey showed that food service employers mainly supported basic droplet protections (soap, hand sanitizer, gloves), rather than comprehensive airborne protections (high-quality masks, air quality monitoring, air cleaning). Food service workers faced challenging decisions surrounding isolation, quarantine, testing, masking, vaccines, and in-home transmission, described anxiety, depression, and substance use as top mental health concerns, and described long-term physical and financial concerns. Focus groups provided qualitative examples of concerns experienced by food service workers and narrowed topic prioritization. The rapid qualitative assessment identified key needs and opportunities, with help reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission identified as a top priority. COVID-19 mitigation scientists offered recommendations for reducing in-home transmission. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced food service workers to experience complex decisions about health and safety, stress and mental health concerns, and longer-term concerns. Challenging health decisions included attempting to avoid an airborne infectious illness when employers were mainly only concerned with droplet precautions and trying to decide protocols for testing and isolation without clear guidance, free tests, or paid sick leave. Key mental health concerns were anxiety, depression, and substance use. Longer-term challenges included Long COVID, lack of mental healthcare access, and financial instability. Food service workers suggest the need for more research aimed at reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission and supporting long-term mental health, physical health, and financial concerns. This research provides an illustrative example of how to cultivate community-based partnerships to respond to immediate and critical issues affecting populations most burdened by public health crises.

Evaluating Natural Experiments that Impact the Diabetes Epidemic: an Introduction to the NEXT-D3 Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is an ongoing public health issue in the USA, and, despite progress, recent reports suggest acute and chronic diabetes complications are increasing. RECENT FINDINGS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 3.0 (NEXT-D3) Network is a 5-year research collaboration involving six academic centers (Harvard University, Northwestern University, Oregon Health & Science University, Tulane University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California San Francisco) and two funding agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health) to address the gaps leading to persisting diabetes burdens. The network builds on previously funded networks, expanding to include type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and an emphasis on health equity. NEXT-D3 researchers use rigorous natural experiment study designs to evaluate impacts of naturally occurring programs and policies, with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. NEXT-D3 projects address whether and to what extent federal or state legislative policies and health plan innovations affect T2D risk and diabetes treatment and outcomes in the USA; real-world effects of increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and the effectiveness of interventions that reduce barriers to medication access (e.g., decreased or eliminated cost sharing for cardiometabolic medications and new medications such as SGLT-2 inhibitors for Medicaid patients). Overarching goals include (1) expanding generalizable knowledge about policies and programs to manage or prevent T2D and educate decision-makers and organizations and (2) generating evidence to guide the development of health equity goals to reduce disparities in T2D-related risk factors, treatment, and complications.

Impact of the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic on US Healthcare Workers: Results from the HERO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The HERO registry was established to support research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE: Describe the COVID-19 pandemic experiences of and effects on individuals participating in the HERO registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered registry enrollment survey conducted from April 10 to July 31, 2020. SETTING: Participants worked in hospitals (74.4%), outpatient clinics (7.4%), and other settings (18.2%) located throughout the nation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14,600 healthcare workers. MAIN MEASURES: COVID-19 exposure, viral and antibody testing, diagnosis of COVID-19, job burnout, and physical and emotional distress. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 42.0 years, 76.4% were female, 78.9% were White, 33.2% were nurses, 18.4% were physicians, and 30.3% worked in settings at high risk for COVID-19 exposure (e.g., ICUs, EDs, COVID-19 units). Overall, 43.7% reported a COVID-19 exposure and 91.3% were exposed at work. Just 3.8% in both high- and low-risk settings experienced COVID-19 illness. In regression analyses controlling for demographics, professional role, and work setting, the risk of COVID-19 illness was higher for Black/African-Americans (aOR 2.32, 99% CI 1.45, 3.70, p < 0.01) and Hispanic/Latinos (aOR 2.19, 99% CI 1.55, 3.08, p < 0.01) compared with Whites. Overall, 41% responded that they were experiencing job burnout. Responding about the day before they completed the survey, 53% of participants reported feeling tired a lot of the day, 51% stress, 41% trouble sleeping, 38% worry, 21% sadness, 19% physical pain, and 15% anger. On average, healthcare workers reported experiencing 2.4 of these 7 distress feelings a lot of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at high risk for COVID-19 exposure, but rates of COVID-19 illness were low. The greater risk of COVID-19 infection among race/ethnicity minorities reported in the general population is also seen in healthcare workers. The HERO registry will continue to monitor changes in healthcare worker well-being during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04342806.

Association between visit-to-visit HbA1c variability and the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate the association between visit-to-visit HbA1c variability and the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 29 260 patients with at least four HbA1c measurements obtained within 2 years of their first diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Different HbA1c variability markers were calculated, including the standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV) and adjusted SD. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association of these HbA1c variability markers with incident cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 4.18 years, a total of 3746 incident cardiovascular disease cases were diagnosed. Multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease across the first, second, third and fourth quartiles of HbA1c SD values were 1.00, 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.42), 1.40 (95% CI 1.26-1.55) and 1.59 (95% CI 1.41-1.77) (P for trend <.001), respectively. When we utilized HbA1c CV and adjusted HbA1c SD values as exposures, similar positive associations were observed. HbA1c variability was also associated with the risk of first and recurrent severe hypoglycaemic events. A mediating effect of severe hypoglycaemia was observed between HbA1c variability and incident cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Large visit-to-visit HbA1c variability is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Severe hypoglycaemia may mediate the association between HbA1c variability and incident cardiovascular disease.

Does the Encounter Type Matter When Defining Diabetes Complications in Electronic Health Records?

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) and claims records are widely used in defining type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications across different types of health care encounters. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates whether using different EHR encounter types to define diabetes complications may lead to different results when examining associations between diabetes complications and their risk factors in patients with T2DM. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study cohort of 64,855 adult patients with T2DM was created from EHR data from the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet), using the Surveillance Prevention, and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) definitions. Incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke events were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes and grouped by encounter types: (1) inpatient (IP) or emergency department (ED) type, or (2) any health care encounter type. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate associations between diabetes complications (ie, CHD and stroke) and risk factors (ie, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c). RESULTS: The incidence rates of CHD and stroke in all health care settings were more than twice the incidence rates of CHD and stroke in IP/ED settings. The age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for incident CHD and stroke across different levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c were similar between IP/ED and all settings. CONCLUSION: While there are large variations in incidence rates of CHD and stroke as absolute risks, the associations between both CHD and stroke and their respective risk factors measured by hazard ratios as relative risks are similar, regardless of alternative definitions.

Effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on ischaemic heart disease.

AIM: To compare the cardiovascular risks between users and non-users of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors based on electronic medical record data from a large integrated healthcare system in South Louisiana. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic, anthropometric, laboratory and medication prescription information for patients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors, either as initial treatments or as add-on treatments, were obtained from electronic health records. Mediation analysis was performed to evaluate the association of use of SGLT2 inhibitors and changes of metabolic risk factors with the risk of incident ischaemic heart disease. RESULTS: A total of 5338 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were matched with 13 821 non-users. During a mean follow-up of 3.26 years, 2302 incident cases of ischaemic heart disease were defined. After adjusting for multiple confounding factors, patients using SGLT2 inhibitors had a lower risk of incident ischaemic heart disease compared to patients not using SGLT2 inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.73). Patients using SGLT2 inhibitors also had a lower risk of incident ischaemic heart disease within 6 months (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.44), 12 months (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.49), 24 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.60) and 36 months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.73), respectively. Reductions in systolic blood pressure partly mediated lowering risk of ischaemic heart disease among patients using SGLT2 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: The real-world data in the present study show the contribution of SGLT2 inhibitors to reducing risk of ischaemic heart disease, and their benefits beyond glucose-lowering.

Inverse Association Between HDL (High-Density Lipoprotein) Cholesterol and Stroke Risk Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Background and Purpose- Few studies have assessed the association of HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol with stroke risk among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We aimed to investigate the association of HDL cholesterol with total and type-specific stroke risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods- We performed a retrospective cohort study of 27 113 blacks and 40 431 whites with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association of different levels of HDL cholesterol with stroke risk. Results- During a mean follow-up period of 3.0 years, 8496 patients developed stroke (8048 ischemic and 448 hemorrhagic). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios across levels of HDL at baseline (<30 [reference group], 30-39.9, 40-49.9, 50-59.9, 60-69.9, 70-79.9, and ≥80 mg/dL) were 1.00, 0.86, 0.77, 0.71, 0.71, 0.77, and 0.69 ( Ptrend <0.001) for total stroke, 1.00, 0.89, 0.82, 0.75, 0.78, 0.76, and 0.75 ( Ptrend <0.001) for ischemic stroke, and 1.00, 0.89, 0.69, 0.66, 0.47, and 0.94 ( Ptrend =0.021) for hemorrhagic stroke, respectively. When we used an updated mean value of HDL cholesterol, the inverse association of HDL cholesterol with stroke risk did not change. This inverse association was consistent among patients of different ages, races, sexes, body mass index, hemoglobin A1c levels, never and past or current smokers, and patients with and without using glucose-lowering, cholesterol-lowering, or antihypertensive agents. Conclusions- The present study found consistent inverse associations between HDL cholesterol and the risk of total, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered research requires a focus on the needs and priorities of patients. Because patient engagement can result in the discovery of important topics not currently prioritized by research programs, topic generation, and prioritization activities conducted with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders are essential. To develop patient-centered research agendas for obesity and diabetes, the Research Action for Health Network conducted topic generation and prioritization activities with multistakeholder research advisory groups. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this case study was to demonstrate how methods for engaging patients in topic generation and prioritization can be implemented in practice for the development of a patient-centered research agenda. RESEARCH DESIGN: Four multistakeholder groups comprising patients, clinicians, and researchers met 4-5 times between November 2014 and July 2015 to generate and prioritize topics for obesity and diabetes research. Topics were prioritized using an iterative engagement process, in which themes were identified and resulting topics were refined and ranked over multiple meetings. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four patients, clinicians, and researchers participated in 2 obesity and 2 diabetes advisory groups. The majority of participants (64.0%) were patients, followed by clinicians (23.4%), researchers (9.4%), and parents of children with diabetes (3.1%). RESULTS: Ten and 12 priority topics were identified for obesity and diabetes, respectively. The resulting research agendas were disseminated to patients, researchers, and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement has the potential to enrich our understanding of patient priorities for research. The results from this process suggest that convening in-person multistakeholder groups can be an effective way to generate research topics that reflect patients' priorities. Engagement strategies should be focused not only on the development of patient-centered research topics but also on the implementation of these topics into research studies.

Introductory Overview of the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network: Examining the Impact of US Health Policies and Practices to Prevent Diabetes and Its Complications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes incidence is rising among vulnerable population subgroups including minorities and individuals with limited education. Many diabetes-related programs and public policies are unevaluated while others are analyzed with research designs highly susceptible to bias which can result in flawed conclusions. The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network includes eight research centers and three funding agencies using rigorous methods to evaluate natural experiments in health policy and program delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: NEXT-D2 research studies use quasi-experimental methods to assess three major areas as they relate to diabetes: health insurance expansion; healthcare financing and payment models; and innovations in care coordination. The studies will report on preventive processes, achievement of diabetes care goals, and incidence of complications. Some studies assess healthcare utilization while others focus on patient-reported outcomes. NEXT-D2 examines the effect of public and private policies on diabetes care and prevention at a critical time, given ongoing and rapid shifts in the US health policy landscape.

Telehealth Use and Healthcare Utilization Among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Louisiana Medicaid Claims.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of telehealth use on healthcare utilization is limited, especially among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. Considering the rapid adoption of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study examined associations between telehealth use and healthcare utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Using Louisiana Medicaid claims data from March 2019 to August 2021, the associations were examined using a difference-in-difference model with propensity score weighting. Demographic characteristics, baseline comorbidities and healthcare utilization, and zip code level environmental factors were included in the analysis. The monthly frequency of healthcare services, including in-person outpatient visits, inpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) tests, were measured as outcomes. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted across different subgroups. RESULTS: We included 48,992 beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes in the study of 27,340 beneficiaries in the telehealth group and 21,652 beneficiaries in the non-telehealth group. Of 1000 beneficiaries per month, the telehealth group had significantly more utilization compared to the non-telehealth group, with an increase of 195.049 in-person outpatient visits (95% CI: 166.169 to 223.929, p < 0.001), 3.816 inpatient visits (95% CI: 2.539 to 5.093, p < 0.001), 10.499 ED visits (95% CI: 7.287 to 13.712, p < 0.001) and 14.153 HbA1c tests (95% CI: 11.431 to 16.875, p < 0.001, respectively. Excluding beneficiaries who had ED or inpatient visits in the 30 days prior to receiving telehealth visits, overall ED visits significantly decreased for the telehealth group versus the non-telehealth group over time, by 9.456 visits (95% CI: - 12.356 to - 6.557, p < 0.001) per 1000 beneficiaries per month on average. CONCLUSION: The study found that telehealth was associated with a significant increase in healthcare utilization in general but has the potential to decrease ED and inpatient utilization for some groups among low-income populations with diabetes.