Glycemic and Cost Outcomes among Hispanic/Latino People with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA Initiating Dulaglutide versus Basal Insulin: a Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal glycemic management after diabetes onset remains a challenge in Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), often resulting in poor health outcomes and higher rates of diabetes-related complications. The aim of this study was to examine and compare demographic and clinical characteristics, glycemic outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among injection-naïve Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D initiating dulaglutide or basal insulin. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts on the basis of pharmacy claims and were propensity-score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Measures of glycemic management included 12 month follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and change in HbA1c from baseline. Follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related HCRU and costs, including costs per 1% change in HbA1c, were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: The final propensity-score matched sample included 2872 patients: 1436 patients in each cohort. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 month follow-up was greater in the dulaglutide cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort [-1.40% (1.88) versus -0.92% (2.07); p < 0.001]. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower proportions of patients with ≥ 1 all-cause and diabetes-related outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays compared with the basal insulin cohort (p < 0.05). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction than the basal insulin cohort ($13,768 versus $19,128; p < 0.001). Diabetes-related costs per 1% reduction were numerically lower for the dulaglutide cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ($9737 versus $11,403; p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide demonstrated better glycemic outcomes and lower all-cause costs per 1% HbA1c reduction among Hispanic/Latino adults compared with those initiating basal insulin. Our real-world findings in the Hispanic/Latino population were consistent with results obtained from the overall population and confirm the glycemic benefits of dulaglutide observed in clinical settings.

COVID-19 and Hospitalization Among Maintenance Dialysis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Time-Dependent Modeling.

Rationale & Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact on hospitalizations in general and on dialysis patients in particular. This study modeled the impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations of dialysis patients in 2020. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting & Participants: Medicare patients on dialysis in calendar year 2020. Predictors: COVID-19 status was divided into 4 stages: COVID1 (first 10 days after initial diagnosis), COVID2 (extends until the Post-COVID stage), Post-COVID (after 21 days with no COVID-19 diagnosis), and Late-COVID (begins after a hospitalization with a COVID-19 diagnosis); demographic and clinical characteristics; and dialysis facilities. Outcome: The sequence of hospitalization events. Analytical Approach: A proportional rate model with a nonparametric baseline rate function of calendar time on the study population. Results: A total of 509,609 patients were included in the study, 63,521 were observed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection, 34,375 became Post-COVID, and 1,900 became Late-COVID. Compared with No-COVID, all 4 stages had significantly greater adjusted risks of hospitalizations with relative rates of 18.50 (95% CI, 18.19-18.81) for COVID1, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.99-2.08) for COVID2, 1.37 (95% CI, 1.35-1.40) for Post-COVID, and 2.00 (95% CI, 1.89-2.11) for Late-COVID. Limitations: For Medicare Advantage patients, we only had inpatient claim information. The analysis was based on data from the year 2020, and the effects may have changed due to vaccinations, new treatments, and new variants. The COVID-19 effects may be somewhat overestimated due to missing information on patients with few or no symptoms and possible delay in COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusions: We discovered a marked time dependence in the effect of COVID-19 on hospitalization of dialysis patients, beginning with an extremely high risk for a relatively short period, with more moderate but continuing elevated risks later, and never returning to the No-COVID level.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Postdischarge Outcomes for Dialysis Patients in the United States: Evidence from Medicare Claims Data.

Background: Recent investigations have shown that, on average, patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a poorer postdischarge prognosis than those hospitalized without COVID-19, but this effect remains unclear among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who are on dialysis. Methods: Leveraging a national ESKD patient claims database administered by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we conducted a retrospective cohort study that characterized the effects of in-hospital COVID-19 on all-cause unplanned readmission and death within 30 days of discharge for patients on dialysis. Included in this study were 436,745 live acute-care hospital discharges of 222,154 Medicare beneficiaries on dialysis from 7871 Medicare-certified dialysis facilities between January 1 and October 31, 2020. Adjusting for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and prevalent comorbidities, we fit facility-stratified Cox cause-specific hazard models with two interval-specific (1-7 and 8-30 days after hospital discharge) effects of in-hospital COVID-19 and effects of prehospitalization COVID-19. Results: The hazard ratios due to in-hospital COVID-19 over the first 7 days after discharge were 95% CI, 1.53 to 1.65 for readmission and 95% CI, 1.38 to 1.70 for death, both with P<0.001. For the remaining 23 days, the hazard ratios were 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.96 and 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07, with P<0.001 and P=0.50, respectively. Effects of prehospitalization COVID-19 were mostly nonsignificant. Conclusions: In-hospital COVID-19 had an adverse effect on both postdischarge readmission and death over the first week. With the surviving patients having COVID-19 substantially selected from those hospitalized, in-hospital COVID-19 was associated with lower rates of readmission and death starting from the second week.

Understanding the Tradeoffs Between Travel Burden and Quality of Care for In-center Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Renal dialysis is a lifesaving but demanding therapy, requiring 3 weekly treatments of multiple-hour durations. Though travel times and quality of care vary across facilities, the extent to which patients are willing and able to engage in weighing tradeoffs is not known. Since 2015, Medicare has summarized and reported quality data for dialysis facilities using a star rating system. We estimate choice models to assess the relative roles of travel distance and quality of care in explaining patient choice of facility. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using national data on 2 million patient-years from 7198 dialysis facilities and 4-star rating releases, we estimated travel distance to patients' closest facilities, incremental travel distance to the next closest facility with a higher star rating, and the difference in ratings between these 2 facilities. We fit mixed effects logistic regression models predicting whether patients dialyzed at their closest facilities. RESULTS: Median travel distance was 4 times that in rural (10.9 miles) versus urban areas (2.6 miles). Higher differences in rating [odds ratios (OR): 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.62] and greater area deprivation (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.48-0.53) were associated with lower odds of attending one's closest facility. Stratified models were also fit based on urbanicity. For rural patients, excess travel was associated with higher odds of attending the closer facility (per 10 miles; OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.04-1.06). Star rating differences were associated with lower odds of receiving care from the closest facility among urban (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51-0.63) and rural patients (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Most dialysis patients have higher rated facilities located not much further than their closest facility, suggesting many patients could evaluate tradeoffs between distance and quality of care in where they receive dialysis. Our results show that such tradeoffs likely occur. Therefore, quality ratings such as the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) Star Rating may provide actionable information to patients and caregivers. However, we were not able to assess whether these associations reflect a causal effect of the Star Ratings on patient choice, as the Star Ratings served only as a marker of quality of care.

COVID-19 Risk Factors and Mortality Outcomes Among Medicare Patients Receiving Long-term Dialysis.

Importance: There is a need for studies to evaluate the risk factors for COVID-19 and mortality among the entire Medicare long-term dialysis population using Medicare claims data. Objective: To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 and mortality in Medicare patients undergoing long-term dialysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, claims-based cohort study compared mortality trends of patients receiving long-term dialysis in 2020 with previous years (2013-2019) and fit Cox regression models to identify risk factors for contracting COVID-19 and postdiagnosis mortality. The cohort included the national population of Medicare patients receiving long-term dialysis in 2020, derived from clinical and administrative databases. COVID-19 was identified through Medicare claims sources. Data were analyzed on May 17, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 main outcomes were COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Associations of claims-based risk factors with COVID-19 and mortality were investigated prediagnosis and postdiagnosis. Results: Among a total of 498 169 Medicare patients undergoing dialysis (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-74] years; 215 935 [43.1%] women and 283 227 [56.9%] men), 60 090 (12.1%) had COVID-19, among whom 15 612 patients (26.0%) died. COVID-19 rates were significantly higher among Black (21 787 of 165 830 patients [13.1%]) and Hispanic (13 530 of 86 871 patients [15.6%]) patients compared with non-Black patients (38 303 of 332 339 [11.5%]), as well as patients with short (ie, 1-89 days; 7738 of 55 184 patients [14.0%]) and extended (ie, ≥90 days; 10 737 of 30 196 patients [35.6%]) nursing home stays in the prior year. Adjusting for all other risk factors, residing in a nursing home 1 to 89 days in the prior year was associated with a higher hazard for COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] vs 0 days, 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.65) and for postdiagnosis mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.25-1.37), as was residing in a nursing home for an extended stay (COVID-19: HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 4.37-4.59; mortality: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16). Black race (HR vs non-Black: HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.28) and Hispanic ethnicity (HR vs non-Hispanic: HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.64-1.72) were associated with significantly higher hazards of COVID-19. Although home dialysis was associated with lower COVID-19 rates (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.80), it was associated with higher mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25). Conclusions and Relevance: These results shed light on COVID-19 risk factors and outcomes among Medicare patients receiving long-term chronic dialysis and could inform policy decisions to mitigate the significant extra burden of COVID-19 and death in this population.

Evaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare.

OBJECTIVE: To examine which factors are driving improvement in the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings and to test whether nonclinical facility characteristics are associated with observed longitudinal changes in the star ratings. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from eligible patients in over 6,000 Medicare-certified dialysis facilities from three annual star rating and individual measure updates, publicly released on DFC in October 2015, October 2016, and April 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Changes in the star rating and individual quality measures were investigated across three public data releases. Year-to-year changes in the star ratings were linked to facility characteristics, adjusting for baseline differences in quality measure performance. DATA COLLECTION: Data from publicly reported quality measures, including standardized mortality, hospitalization, and transfusion ratios, dialysis adequacy, type of vascular access for dialysis, and management of mineral and bone disease, were extracted from annual DFC data releases. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The proportion of four- and five-star facilities increased from 30.0% to 53.4% between October 2015 and April 2018. Quality improvement was driven by the domain of care containing the dialysis adequacy and hypercalcemia measures. Additionally, independently owned facilities and facilities belonging to smaller dialysis organizations had significantly lower odds of year-to-year improvement than facilities belonging to either of the two large dialysis organizations (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.736, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.631-0.856 and OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.723-0.879, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of four- and five-star facilities has increased markedly over a three-year time period. These changes were driven by improvement in the specific quality measures that may be most directly under the control of the dialysis facility.

Delivery of HIV Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence Support Services by HIV Care Providers in the United States, 2013 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinicians' adoption of recommendations of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care and others for supporting adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We surveyed a probability sample of US HIV care providers to estimate the percentage offering 3 ART adherence support services to most or all patients and assessed the characteristics of providers offering all 3 services (comprehensive support) to most or all patients. RESULTS: Almost all providers (95.5%) discussed ART adherence at every visit, 60.1% offered advice about tools to increase adherence, 53.5% referred nonadherent patients for supportive services, and 42.8% provided comprehensive support. Nurse practitioners were more likely to offer comprehensive support as were providers who practiced at Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded facilities, provided primary care, or started caring for HIV-infected patients within 10 years. CONCLUSION: Less than half of HIV care providers offered comprehensive ART adherence support. Certain subgroups may benefit from interventions to increase delivery of adherence support.

Retention in Care Services Reported by HIV Care Providers in the United States, 2013 to 2014.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that HIV care providers offer retention-in-care services, but data are needed to assess service provision. METHODS: We surveyed a probability sample of 1234 HIV care providers to estimate the percentage of providers whose practices offered 5 recommended retention services and describe providers' perceptions of barriers to care among patients. RESULTS: An estimated 21% of providers' practices offered all 5 retention services. Providers at smaller (<50 versus >400 patients), private, and non-Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP)-funded practices, and practices without on-site case management were significantly less likely to provide patient navigation services or do systematic monitoring of retention. Providers' most commonly perceived barriers to care among patients were mental health (40%), substance abuse (36%), and transportation (34%) issues. CONCLUSION: Deficiencies in the provision of key retention services are substantial. New strategies may be needed to increase the delivery of recommended retention services, especially among private, non-RWHAP-funded, and smaller facilities.

Nonresponse and Underreporting Errors Increase over the Data Collection Week Based on Paradata from the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey.

Background: Food acquisition diary surveys are important for studying food expenditures, factors affecting food acquisition decisions, and relations between these decisions with selected measures of health (e.g., body mass index, self-reported health). However, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the errors associated with these diary surveys, which can bias survey estimates and research findings. The use of paradata, which has been largely ignored in previous literature on diary surveys, could be useful for studying errors in these surveys.Objective: We used paradata to assess survey errors in the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS).Methods: To evaluate the patterns of nonresponse over the diary period, we fit a multinomial logistic regression model to data from this 1-wk diary survey. We also assessed factors influencing respondents' probability of reporting food acquisition events during the diary process by using logistic regression models. Finally, with the use of an ordinal regression model, we studied factors influencing respondents' perceived ease of participation in the survey.Results: As the diary period progressed, nonresponse increased, especially for those starting the survey on Friday (where the odds of a refusal increased by 12% with each fielding day). The odds of reporting food acquisition events also decreased by 6% with each additional fielding day. Similarly, the odds of reporting ≥1 food-away-from-home event (i.e., meals, snacks, and drinks obtained outside the home) decreased significantly over the fielding period. Male respondents, larger households, households that eat together less often, and households with frequent guests reported a significantly more difficult time getting household members to participate, as did non-English-speaking households and households currently experiencing difficult financial conditions.Conclusions: Nonresponse and underreporting of food acquisition events tended to increase in the FoodAPS as data collection proceeded. This analysis of paradata available in the FoodAPS revealed these errors and suggests methodologic improvements for future food acquisition surveys.

Barriers to Universal Prescribing of Antiretroviral Therapy by HIV Care Providers in the United States, 2013-2014.

INTRODUCTION: HIV treatment guidelines recommend initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4 cell (CD4) count, barring contraindications or barriers to treatment. An estimated 6% of persons receiving HIV care in 2013 were not prescribed ART. We examined reasons for this gap in the care continuum. METHODS: During 2013-2014, we surveyed a probability sample of HIV care providers, of whom 1234 returned surveys (64.0% adjusted response rate). We estimated percentages of providers who followed guidelines and their characteristics, and who deferred ART prescribing for any reason. RESULTS: Barring contraindications, 71.2% of providers initiated ART regardless of CD4 count. Providers less likely to initiate had caseloads ≤20 vs. >200 patients [adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47 to 1.02, P = 0.03], practiced at non-Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded facilities (aPR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.98, P = 0.02), or reported pharmaceutical assistance programs provided insufficient medication to meet patients' needs (aPR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.98, P = 0.02). In all, 17.0% never deferred prescribing ART, 69.6% deferred for 1%-10% of patients, and 13.3% deferred for >10%. Among providers who had deferred ART, 59.4% cited patient refusal as a reason in >50% of cases, 31.1% reported adherence concerns because of mental health disorders or substance abuse, and 21.4% reported adherence concerns because of social problems, eg, homelessness, as factors in >50% of cases when deferring ART. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 29% of HIV care providers had not adopted recommendations to initiate ART regardless of CD4 count, barring contraindications, or barriers to treatment. Low-volume providers and those at non-Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded facilities were less likely to follow this guideline. Among all providers, leading reasons for deferring ART included patient refusal and adherence concerns.

Qualifications, Demographics, Satisfaction, and Future Capacity of the HIV Care Provider Workforce in the United States, 2013-2014.

BACKGROUND: The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected population in the United States is increasing by about 30 000 annually (new infections minus deaths). With improvements in diagnosis and engagement in care, additional qualified HIV care providers may be needed. METHODS: We surveyed a probability sample of 2023 US HIV care providers in 2013-2014, including those at Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP)-funded facilities and in private practices. We estimated future patient care capacity by comparing counts of providers entering and planning to leave practice within 5 years, and the number of patients under their care. RESULTS: Of surveyed providers, 1234 responded (adjusted response rate, 64%): 63% were white, 11% black, 11% Hispanic, and 16% other race/ethnicity; 37% were satisfied/very satisfied with salary/reimbursement, and 33% were satisfied/very satisfied with administrative time. Compared with providers in private practice, more providers at RWHAP-funded facilities were HIV specialists (71% vs 43%; P < .0001) and planned to leave HIV practice within 5 years (11% vs 4%; P = .0004). An estimated 190 more full-time equivalent providers (defined as 40 HIV clinical care hours per week) entered practice in the past 5 years than are expected to leave in the next 5 years. If these rates continue, by 2019 patient care capacity will increase by 65 000, compared with an increased requirement of at least 100 000. CONCLUSIONS: Projected workforce growth by 2019 will not accommodate the increased number of HIV-infected persons requiring care. RWHAP-funded facilities may face attrition of highly qualified providers. Dissatisfaction with salary/reimbursement and administrative burden is substantial, and black and Hispanic providers are underrepresented relative to HIV patients.

Delivery of HIV Transmission Risk-Reduction Services by HIV Care Providers in the United States-2013.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based guidelines have long recommended that HIV care providers deliver HIV transmission risk-reduction (RR) services, but recent data are needed to assess their adoption. METHODS: The authors surveyed a probability sample of 1234 US HIV care providers on delivery of 9 sexual behavior- and 7 substance use-related HIV transmission RR services and created an indicator of "adequate" delivery of services in each area, defined as performing approximately 70% or more of applicable services. RESULTS: Providers were most likely to encourage patients to disclose HIV status to all partners since HIV diagnosis (81%) and least likely to ask about disclosure to new sex and drug injection partners at follow-up visits (both 41%). Adequate delivery of sexual behavior- and substance use-related RR services was low (37% and 43%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The majority of US HIV care providers may need additional support to improve delivery of comprehensive HIV transmission RR services.