Real-World Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes Remission in a U.S. Insured Population Using a Large Administrative Claims Database.

Objective: A 2021 international consensus statement defined type 2 diabetes remission as A1C <6.5% measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering therapy. We aimed to investigate whether retrospective claims-based data can assess remission based on this definition, whether three increasingly strict alternative definitions affect the prevalence of remission and characteristics of remission cohorts, and how cohorts with and without sufficient data to assess for remission differ. Research design and methods: We used de-identified administrative claims from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members, enriched with laboratory values, to assess diabetes remission. We used alternative glycemic, temporal, and pharmacologic criteria to assess the sensitivity of remission definitions to changes in claims-based logic. Results: Among 524,076 adults with type 2 diabetes, 185,285 (35.4%) had insufficient additional laboratory and/or enrollment data to assess for remission. While more likely to be younger, these individuals had similar initial A1C values and geographical distribution as the 338,791 (64.6%) assessed for remission. Of those assessed for remission, 10,694 (3.2%) met the 2021 consensus statement definition. The proportion of individuals meeting the three alternative definitions ranged from 0.8 to 2.3%. Across all criteria, those meeting the remission definition were more likely to be female, had a lower initially observed A1C, and had a higher prevalence of bariatric surgery. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of laboratory-value enriched claims-based assessments of type 2 diabetes remission. Establishing stable claims-based markers of remission can enable population assessments of diabetes remission and evaluate the association between remission and clinical outcomes.

Characterizing Diabetes Empowerment and Motivation for Changing Health Behaviors Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Effectively engaging people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) earlier in their health journeys is critical to prevent downstream complications. Digitally based diabetes programs are a growing component of care delivery that have the potential to engage individuals outside of traditional clinic-based settings and use personalized data to pair people to tailored diabetes self-management interventions. Knowing an individuals' diabetes empowerment and health-related motivation can help drive appropriate recommendations for personalized interventions. We aimed to characterize diabetes empowerment and motivation towards changing health behaviors among participants in Level2, a T2D specialty care organization in the USA that combines wearable technology with personalized clinical support. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among people enrolled in Level2 (February-March 2021). Distributions of respondent-reported diabetes empowerment and health motivation were analyzed using Motivation and Attitudes Toward Changing Health (MATCH) and Diabetes Empowerment Scale Short Form (DES-SF) scales, respectively. Associations between MATCH and DES-SF scores with Level2 engagement measures and glycemic control were analyzed. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1258 respondents with T2D (mean age 55.7 ± 8.4 years). Respondents had high average MATCH (4.19/5) and DES-SF (4.02/5) scores. The average MATCH subscores for willingness (4.43/5) and worthwhileness (4.39/5) were higher than the average ability subscore (3.73/5). Both MATCH and DES-SF scores showed very weak correlations with Level2 engagement measures and glycemic control (ρ = - 0.18-0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Level2 survey respondents had high average motivation and diabetes empowerment scores. Further research is needed to validate sensitivity of these scales to detect changes in motivation and empowerment over time and to determine whether differences in scores can be used to pair people to personalized interventions.

Persistence on Novel Cardioprotective Antihyperglycemic Therapies in the United States.

Selected glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) have cardioprotective effects in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and elevated cardiovascular risk. Prescription and consistent use of these medications are essential to realizing their benefits. In a nationwide deidentified United States administrative claims database of adults with T2D, the prescription practices of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2i were evaluated across guideline-directed co-morbidity indications from 2018 to 2020. The monthly fill rates were assessed for 12 months after the initiation of therapy by calculating the proportion of days with consistent medication use. Of 587,657 subjects with T2D, 80,196 (13.6%) were prescribed GLP-1RAs and 68,149 (11.5%) SGLT-2i from 2018 to 2020, representing 12.9% and 11.6% of patients with indications for each medication, respectively. In new initiators, 1-year fill rate was 52.5% for GLP-1RAs and 52.9% for SGLT-2i, which was higher for patients with commercial insurance than those with Medicare Advantage plans for both GLP-1RAs (59.3% vs 51.0%, p <0.001) and SGLT-2i (63.4% vs 50.3%, p <0.001). After adjusting for co-morbidities, there were higher rates of prescription fills for patients with commercial insurance (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.29 for GLP-1RAs, and 1.59 [1.42 to 1.77] for SGLT-2i); and higher income (odds ratio 1.09 [1.06 to 1.12] for GLP-1RAs, and 1.06 [1.03 to 1.1] for SGLT-2i). From 2018 to 2020, the use of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2i remained limited to fewer than 1 in 8 patients with T2D and indications, with 1-year fill rates around 50%. The low and inconsistent use of these medications compromises their longitudinal health outcome benefits in a period of expanding indications for their use.

Exploration of Residual Confounding in Analyses of Associations of Metformin Use and Outcomes in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Metformin is often used as a first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes; however, frequent discontinuation with reduced kidney function and increased disease severity indicates that a comparison with any other group (eg, nonusers or insulin users) must address significant residual confounding concerns. Objectives: To examine the potential for residual confounding in a commonly used observational study design applied to metformin and to propose a more robust study design for future observational studies of metformin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study with a prevalent user design was conducted using an administrative claims database for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the US. Participants were categorized into 2 distinct cohorts: 404 458 individuals with type 2 diabetes and 81 791 individuals with prediabetes. Clinical history was observed in 2018, and end points were observed in 2019. Statistical analyses were conducted between May and December 2021. Exposures: Prevalent use (recent prescription and history of use on at least 90 of the preceding 365 days) of metformin or insulin but not both at the start of the observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total inpatient admission days in 2019 and total medical spending (excluding prescription drugs) in 2019. Each of these measures was treated as a binary outcome (0 vs >0 inpatient days and top 10% vs bottom 90% of medical spending). Results: The study included 404 458 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [7.5] years; 52.7% female). A strong metformin effect estimate was associated with reduced inpatient admissions (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62) and reduced medical expenditures (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.55-0.60). However, implementation of additional robust design features (negative control outcomes and a complementary cohort) revealed that the estimated beneficial effect was attributable to residual confounding associated with individuals' overall health, not metformin itself. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that common observational study designs for studies of metformin in a type 2 diabetes population are at risk for consequential residual confounding. By performing 2 additional validation checks, the study design proposed here exposes residual confounding that nullifies the initially favorable claim derived from a common study design.

Improved Time in Range During 28 Days of Meal Delivery for People With Type 2 Diabetes.

Objective: Nutrition therapy is a cornerstone of care for people with type 2 diabetes, yet starting new, healthy eating behaviors and sustaining them can be challenging. This decentralized, single-arm study assessed the impact of 28 days of home-delivered, pre-portioned meals (three meals per day) on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic control and quality of life. Research design and methods: We enrolled 154 people with type 2 diabetes from across the United States. All participants were enrolled in a digital-first type 2 diabetes care center of excellence and had a time in range (TIR) <70% or a glucose management index (GMI) >7%. A total of 102 participants received another set of meals for a household member. Forty-four participants were excluded from CGM-based analysis because of sparse data in the baseline or intervention period. Results: From the baseline through the intervention period, average TIR improved by 6.8% (95% CI 4.0-9.7, P <0.001), average GMI improved by 0.21% (95% CI 0.11-0.32, P <0.001), and participants' odds of achieving ≥70% TIR increased (odds ratio 2.55 [95% CI 0.93-7.80, P = 0.051]). Although average TIR increased rapidly upon initiation of meal delivery, it regressed when the delivery period ended. Conclusion: Home-delivered meals were associated with modest TIR and GMI improvements, but only in the short term. More research is needed to determine whether the effects of nutrition therapy can be extended by providing ongoing meal delivery or additional support such as behavioral intervention.

Risk Factors Associated with COVID-19 Hospitalization and Mortality: A Large Claims-Based Analysis Among People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes has been identified as a high-risk comorbidity for COVID-19 hospitalization. We evaluated additional risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in a nationwide US database. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database (January 1, 2019-July 15, 2020) containing de-identified nationwide administrative claims, SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results, and COVID-19 inpatient admissions data. Logistic regression was used to understand risk factors for hospitalization and in-hospital mortality among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and in the overall population. Robustness of associations was further confirmed by subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the T2D population. RESULTS: A total of 36,364 people were identified who were either SARS-CoV-2+ or hospitalized for COVID-19. T2D was associated with increased COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. Factors associated with increased hospitalization risk were largely consistent in the overall population and the T2D subgroup, including age, male sex, and these top five comorbidities: dementia, metastatic tumor, congestive heart failure, paraplegia, and metabolic disease. Biguanides (mainly metformin) were consistently associated with lower odds of hospitalization, whereas sulfonylureas and insulins were associated with greater odds of hospitalization among people with T2D. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide US analysis, T2D was identified as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 complications. Many factors conferred similar risk of hospitalization across both populations; however, particular diabetes medications may be markers for differential risk. The insights on comorbidities and medications may inform population health initiatives, including prevention efforts for high-risk patient populations such as those with T2D.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers With the Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Hypertensive Patients With COVID-19.

Background Despite its clinical significance, the risk of severe infection requiring hospitalization among outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who receive angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) remains uncertain. Methods and Results In a propensity score-matched outpatient cohort (January-May 2020) of 2263 Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals with hypertension and a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2, we determined the association of ACE inhibitors and ARBs with COVID-19 hospitalization. In a concurrent inpatient cohort of 7933 hospitalized with COVID-19, we tested their association with in-hospital mortality. The robustness of the observations was assessed in a contemporary cohort (May-August). In the outpatient study, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 0.53-1.13, P=0.18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; 0.61-1.26, P=0.48) were associated with hospitalization risk. ACE inhibitors were associated with lower hospitalization risk in the older Medicare group (HR, 0.61; 0.41-0.93, P=0.02), but not the younger commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; 0.82-5.60, P=0.12; P-interaction 0.09). Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with lower hospitalization risk in either population in the validation cohort. In the primary inpatient study cohort, neither ACE inhibitors (HR, 0.97; 0.81-1.16; P=0.74) nor ARBs (HR, 1.15; 0.95-1.38, P=0.15) were associated with in-hospital mortality. These observations were consistent in the validation cohort. Conclusions ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality. Despite early evidence for a potential association between ACE inhibitors and severe COVID-19 prevention in older individuals, the inconsistency of this observation in recent data argues against a role for prophylaxis.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers with the Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Hypertensive Patients with Coronavirus Disease-19.

BACKGROUND: Whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) Inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) mitigate or exacerbate SARS-CoV-2 infection remains uncertain. In a national study, we evaluated the association of ACE inhibitors and ARB with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) hospitalization and mortality among individuals with hypertension. METHODS: Among Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals, we identified 2,263 people with hypertension, receiving ≥1 antihypertensive agents, and who had a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2 test (outpatient cohort). In a propensity score-matched analysis, we determined the association of ACE inhibitors and ARBs with the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19. In a second study of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (inpatient cohort), we tested the association of these medications with in-hospital mortality. We stratified all our assessments by insurance groups. RESULTS: Among individuals in the outpatient and inpatient cohorts, 31.9% and 29.8%, respectively, used ACE inhibitors and 32.3% and 28.1% used ARBs. In the outpatient study, over a median 30.0 (19.0 - 40.0) days after testing positive, 12.7% were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score-matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (HR, 0.77 [0.53, 1.13], P = 0.18), nor ARBs (HR, 0.88 [0.61, 1.26], P = 0.48), were significantly associated with risk of hospitalization. In analyses stratified by insurance group, ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, were associated with a significant lower risk of hospitalization in the Medicare group (HR, 0.61 [0.41, 0.93], P = 0.02), but not the commercially insured group (HR: 2.14 [0.82, 5.60], P = 0.12; P-interaction 0.09). In the inpatient study, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% had an ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score-matched analyses, neither use of ACE inhibitor (0.97 [0.81, 1.16]; P = 0.74) nor ARB (1.15 [0.95, 1.38]; P = 0.15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality, in total or in the stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was not associated with the risk of hospitalization or mortality among those infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, there was a nearly 40% lower risk of hospitalization with the use of ACE inhibitors in the Medicare population. This finding merits a clinical trial to evaluate the potential role of ACE inhibitors in reducing the risk of hospitalization among older individuals, who are at an elevated risk of adverse outcomes with the infection.