Association of Area-Level Socioeconomic Deprivation With Hypoglycemic and Hyperglycemic Crises in US Adults With Diabetes.

Importance: Social determinants of health play a role in diabetes management and outcomes, including potentially life-threatening complications of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS). Although several person-level socioeconomic factors have been associated with these complications, the implications of area-level socioeconomic deprivation are unknown. Objective: To examine the association between area-level deprivation and the risks of experiencing emergency department visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises (ie, DKA or HHS). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for privately insured individuals and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries across the US. The analysis included adults with diabetes who met the claims criteria for diabetes between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Data analyses were performed from November 17, 2020, to November 11, 2021. Exposures: Area deprivation index (ADI) was derived for each county for 2016 and 2017 using 17 county-level indicators from the American Community Survey. ADI values were applied to patients who were living in each county based on their index dates and were categorized according to county-level ADI quintile (with quintile 1 having the least deprivation and quintile 5 having the most deprivation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The numbers of emergency department visits or hospitalizations related to the primary diagnoses of hypoglycemia and DKA or HHS (ascertained using validated diagnosis codes in the first or primary position of emergency department or hospital claims) between 2016 and 2019 were calculated for each ADI quintile using negative binomial regression models and adjusted for patient age, sex, health plan type, comorbidities, glucose-lowering medication type, and percentage of White residents in the county. Results: The study population included 1 116 361 individuals (563 943 women [50.5%]), with a mean (SD) age of 64.9 (13.2) years. Of these patients, 343 726 (30.8%) resided in counties with the least deprivation (quintile 1) and 121 810 (10.9%) lived in counties with the most deprivation (quintile 5). Adjusted rates of severe hypoglycemia increased from 13.54 (95% CI, 12.91-14.17) per 1000 person-years in quintile 1 counties to 19.13 (95% CI, 17.62-20.63) per 1000 person-years in quintile 5 counties, corresponding to an incidence rate ratio of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.29-1.54; P < .001). Adjusted rates of DKA or HHS increased from 7.49 (95% CI, 6.96-8.02) per 1000 person-years in quintile 1 counties to 8.37 (95% CI, 7.50-9.23) per 1000 person-years in quintile 5 counties, corresponding to an incidence rate ratio of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.00-1.25; P = .049). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that living in counties with a high area-level deprivation was associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia and DKA or HHS. The concentration of these preventable events in areas of high deprivation signals the need for interventions that target the structural barriers to optimal diabetes management and health.

Association Between Area-Level Socioeconomic Deprivation and Diabetes Care Quality in US Primary Care Practices.

Importance: Diabetes management operates under a complex interrelationship between behavioral, social, and economic factors that affect a patient's ability to self-manage and access care. Objective: To examine the association between 2 complementary area-based metrics, area deprivation index (ADI) score and rurality, and optimal diabetes care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed the electronic health records of patients who were receiving care at any of the 75 Mayo Clinic or Mayo Clinic Health System primary care practices in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin in 2019. Participants were adults with diabetes aged 18 to 75 years. All data were abstracted and analyzed between June 1 and November 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the attainment of all 5 components of the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care: glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <8.0%), blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), lipid control (use of statin therapy according to recommended guidelines), aspirin use (for patients with ischemic vascular disease), and no tobacco use. The proportion of patients receiving optimal diabetes care was calculated as a function of block group-level ADI score (a composite measure of 17 US Census indicators) and zip code-level rurality (calculated using Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes). Odds of achieving the D5 metric and its components were assessed using logistic regression that was adjusted for demographic characteristics, coronary artery disease history, and primary care team specialty. Results: Among the 31 934 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 59 [11.7] years; 17 645 men [55.3%]), 13 138 (41.1%) achieved the D5 metric of optimal diabetes care. Overall, 4090 patients (12.8%) resided in the least deprived quintile (quintile 1) of block groups and 1614 (5.1%) lived in the most deprived quintile (quintile 5), while 9193 patients (28.8%) lived in rural areas and 2299 (7.2%) in highly rural areas. The odds of meeting the D5 metric were lower for individuals residing in quintile 5 vs quintile 1 block groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78). Patients residing in rural (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and highly rural (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.91) zip codes were also less likely to attain the D5 metric compared with those in urban areas. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that patients living in more deprived and rural areas were significantly less likely to attain high-quality diabetes care compared with those living in less deprived and urban areas. The results call for geographically targeted population health management efforts by health systems, public health agencies, and payers.