Racial Disparities in Evidence-Based Management of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency of evidence-based management (EBM) of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to examine for racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of EBM. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients with T2D and presumptive MASLD in an academic health care system between 2019 and 2021. Presumptive MASLD was defined as at least 1 alanine aminotransferase value ≥30 U/L with exclusions for alcohol overuse, viral hepatitis, liver transplantation, chemotherapy use, and liver disease other than MASLD. We calculated the proportion of patients receiving EBM, defined as a composite of liver ultrasound, transient elastography, or hepatology evaluation. We also examined the association between race/ethnicity and EBM via a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Our sample included 6532 patients; mean age was 58.0 (SD 13.1), 41.7% were female and 3.9%, 26.6%, 58.7%, and 5.8% were of Latino/a/x ethnicity, non-Latino (NL) Black race, NL White race, and NL Asian race, respectively. Rates of EBM were low overall (11.5%), with lower odds of EBM in NL Black versus NL White patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.59, 0.96). Odds of hepatology evaluation and placement of MASLD diagnosis codes were also lower in NL Black versus NL White patients. CONCLUSION: Racial disparities exist in the receipt of EBM among patients with T2D and presumptive MASLD. These findings highlight the need for research to identify drivers of disparities, and to support development of clinical interventions that equitably facilitate EBM of MASLD in patients with T2D.

Evaluating Therapeutic Inertia in Two Telehealth Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: Secondary Analyses of a Randomized Trial.

Introduction: Although therapeutic inertia is a known driver of suboptimal type 2 diabetes control, little is known about how to combat this phenomenon. We analyzed randomized trial data to determine whether a comprehensive telehealth intervention was more effective than a less structured telehealth approach (telemonitoring and care coordination) at promoting treatment intensification in poorly controlled diabetes. Methods: Patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes were randomized 1:1 to telemonitoring/care coordination or a comprehensive telehealth intervention, which included an active, study provider-guided medication management component. Prospectively collected medication lists were used to determine whether treatment intensification occurred for each patient during 3-month intervals throughout the study period. To examine between-arm differences in treatment intensification over time, we fit a generalized estimation equation model. In each arm, hemoglobin A1c levels at the beginning and end of each 3-month interval were used to distinguish between therapeutic inertia and potentially appropriate nonintensification of treatment. Results: The mean, model-estimated likelihood of treatment intensification during 3-month intervals was 61.3% in the comprehensive telehealth group versus 48.6% for telemonitoring/care coordination (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.2; p = 0.0007), with no evidence that treatment effect varied over time (p = 0.54). Treatment intervals with observed therapeutic inertia were more common in the telemonitoring/care coordination arm than the comprehensive telehealth arm (116/300, 39% vs. 57/275, 21%). Conclusions: A comprehensive telehealth approach that integrated protocol-guided medication management increased treatment intensification and reduced therapeutic inertia compared with a less structured telehealth approach. The studied approaches may serve as examples of how systems might use telehealth to combat therapeutic inertia. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03520413.