Comparative analysis of hospitalization risk for incident heart failure in non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White individuals with type 2 diabetes on empagliflozin (Empa-AA): Insights from real-world data.

AIM: There are limited data to evaluate hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) in non-Hispanic Black (hereafter Black) or non-Hispanic White (hereafter White) individuals without previous hHF. Our goal was to evaluate the risk of hHF among Black versus White patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were initially prescribed empagliflozin using real-world data. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective cohort study included participants aged ≥18 years who had T2DM, were either Black or White, had no previous hHF, and were prescribed empagliflozin between August 2014 and December 2019. Our primary outcome was time to first hHF after the initial prescription of empagliflozin. A propensity-score (PS)-weighted analysis was performed to balance characteristics by race. The inverse probability treatment weighting method based on PS was used to make treatment comparisons. To compare Black with White, a PS-weighted Cox's cause-specific hazards model was used. RESULTS: In total, 8789 participants were eligible for inclusion (Black = 3216 vs. White = 5573). The Black cohort was significantly younger, had a higher proportion of females, and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease, hypertension and diabetic retinopathy, while the White cohort had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease. After adjustment for confounding factors such as age, gender, coronary artery disease, hypertension and diabetic retinopathy, the hazard ratio for first-time hHF was not significantly different between the two racial groups [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.09 (0.84-1.42), p = .52]. CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant difference in incident hHF among Black versus White individuals with T2DM following a prescription for empagliflozin.

Professional Competencies for Diabetes Technology Use in the Care Setting.

PURPOSE: The integration of diabetes technology into diabetes care and self-management is evolving so rapidly that providing sufficient support has become an obstacle for many health care professionals (HCPs) in practice. Diabetes technology requires HCPs to stay current with treatment goals and practice guidelines. Diabetes care and education specialists (DCESs) are well positioned to take on this challenge by seizing opportunities to apply their skills, knowledge, and experience to contribute to a technology-enabled practice environment. Diabetes technology includes devices, hardware, and software utilized to manage all aspects of diabetes care, including lifestyle management, glucose monitoring, and insulin delivery. The complexities of caring for persons with diabetes (PWD) who utilize diabetes technology is best accomplished in partnership with other members of the care team and support staff to cover all aspects of technology including prior authorizations, onboarding PWD, downloading and interpreting data, and supporting ongoing utilization. The purpose of this article is to introduce a comprehensive set of role-based competencies for HCPs, DCESs, and staff for the selection, implementation, and sustainability of diabetes technology when providing diabetes care, education, and support. The role-based competencies described in this article are intended to support the initiation, continuation, and optimal use of diabetes technology in practice through ongoing education and guidance of care team members. CONCLUSION: This article describes the diabetes technology competencies essential for all levels of the care team and support staff in various care settings to deliver comprehensive diabetes management and support to PWD utilizing diabetes technology in their self-care regimen.

Building the 2022 Diabetes Technology Practice Competencies Using Modified Delphi Methodology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to construct professional competencies for diabetes technology use in various care settings reflecting the mission of the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists (ADCES). METHOD: ADCES convened a core team of nationally representative diabetes technology experts to develop professional competencies specifically related to diabetes technology use. A modified Delphi methodology, which comprised 4 rounds, was used for consensus development among these experts. First, experts developed and arrived at a consensus on the initial draft of competencies. They also identified health care professionals and staff essential for effective technology integration in various diabetes care settings. A survey was completed by diabetes technology experts that are members of ADCES. Next, a multidisciplinary focus group was conducted to gain feedback. Finally, the edited competencies were distributed via survey for feedback by diabetes technology experts from various disciplines. RESULTS: One hundred four diabetes technology experts in the United States participated in the final survey, representing various health care professions and clinical settings. A final set of 94 competencies across 7 domains was determined. CONCLUSION: Modified Delphi methodology is an effective way to utilize multidisciplinary expertise to develop diabetes technology-related competencies for diabetes care professionals and staff in a variety of settings. These competencies align with the mission of ADCES to empower diabetes care and education specialists to expand the horizons of innovative education, management, and support.

Willingness to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine and Reasons for Hesitancy Among Medicare Beneficiaries: Results From a National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine among Medicare beneficiaries, (2) the associated factors, and (3) the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: Data were taken from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) 2020 Fall COVID-19 Supplement, conducted October-November 2020. Willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine was measured by respondents' answer to whether they would get a COVID-19 vaccine when available. We classified responses of "definitely" and "probably" as "willing to get," and responses "probably not," "definitely not," and "not sure" as "vaccine hesitancy." Reasons for vaccine hesitancy were assessed by a series of yes/no questions focusing on 10 potential reasons. The analytical sample included 6715 adults 65 years and older. We conducted a logistic regression model to assess demographic factors and other factors associated with the willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine. All analyses were conducted in Stata 14 and accounted for the complex survey design of MCBS. RESULTS: Overall, 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.1-63.0) of Medicare beneficiaries would be willing to get a vaccine when available. Among those who were hesitant, more than 40% reported that mistrust of the government and side effects as the main reasons. Logistic regression model results showed that non-Hispanic Blacks (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.44) and Hispanics (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.77) were less willing to get a vaccine than non-Hispanic Whites; beneficiaries with an income of less than $25 000 (AOR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81) were less willing to get the vaccine than those with an income of $25 000 or more; those who did not think that the COVID-19 virus was more contagious (AOR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.69) or more deadly (AOR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.65) were also less willing to get the vaccine than those who thought that the virus was more contagious or more deadly than the influenza virus. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 MCBS survey data showed that close to 40% of Medicare beneficiaries were hesitant about getting a COVID-19 vaccine, and the hesitancy was greater in racial/ethnic minorities. Medicare beneficiaries were concerned about the safety of the vaccine, and some appeared to be misinformed. Evidence-based educational and policy-level interventions need to be implemented to further promote COVID-19 vaccination.

Does the Association Between Hemoglobin A1c and Risk of Cardiovascular Events Vary by Residential Segregation? The REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine if the association between higher A1C and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among adults with and without diabetes is modified by racial residential segregation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study used a case-cohort design, which included a random sample of 2,136 participants at baseline and 1,248 participants with incident CVD (i.e., stroke, coronary heart disease [CHD], and fatal CHD during 7-year follow-up) selected from 30,239 REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study participants originally assessed between 2003 and 2007. The relationship of A1C with incident CVD, stratified by baseline diabetes status, was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for demographics, CVD risk factors, and socioeconomic status. Effect modification by census tract-level residential segregation indices (dissimilarity, interaction, and isolation) was assessed using interaction terms. RESULTS: The mean age of participants in the random sample was 64.2 years, with 44% African American, 59% female, and 19% with diabetes. In multivariable models, A1C was not associated with CVD risk among those without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] per 1% [11 mmol/mol] increase, 0.94 [95% CI 0.76-1.16]). However, A1C was associated with an increased risk of CVD (HR per 1% increase, 1.23 [95% CI 1.08-1.40]) among those with diabetes. This A1C-CVD association was modified by the dissimilarity (P < 0.001) and interaction (P = 0.001) indices. The risk of CVD was increased at A1C levels between 7 and 9% (53-75 mmol/mol) for those in areas with higher residential segregation (i.e., lower interaction index). In race-stratified analyses, there was a more pronounced modifying effect of residential segregation among African American participants with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Higher A1C was associated with increased CVD risk among individuals with diabetes, and this relationship was more pronounced at higher levels of residential segregation among African American adults. Additional research on how structural determinants like segregation may modify health effects is needed.

Should Baseline Hemoglobin A1c or Dose of SGLT-2i Guide Treatment With SGLT-2i Versus DPP-4i in People With Type 2 Diabetes? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Our aim was to explore whether the baseline hemoglobin A1c or the dose of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) chosen better predicted the efficacy of SGLT-2i versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) in type 2 diabetes. We searched for randomized trials that compared SGLT-2i with DPP-4i in type 2 diabetes and reported a change in hemoglobin A1c over time. We created 2 separate analyses (one based on baseline hemoglobin A1c and the other according to US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved SGLT-2i dose). Thirteen trials were included. In the analysis according to baseline hemoglobin A1c , there was a significantly greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c when baseline hemoglobin A1c was ≥8.5%, favoring SGLT-2i over DPP-4i but not when baseline hemoglobin A1c was <8.5% (mean difference [95%CI], -0.36% [-0.53% to -0.18%] and 0.04% [-0.09% to 0.17%], respectively). On restricting the analysis to trials stratifying hemoglobin A1c to <8.0% or ≥8.0%, results did not change. In the analysis based on FDA-approved SGLT-2i doses, higher SGLT-2i doses caused a significantly greater hemoglobin A1c reduction at ≤26 and ≥52 weeks compared with the highest DPP-4i doses (mean difference [95%CI], -0.11% [-0.18% to -0.04%] and -0.24% [-0.34% to -0.15%], respectively). Lower SGLT-2i doses caused a significantly greater hemoglobin A1c reduction at ≥52 weeks but not at ≤26 weeks compared with the highest DPP-4i doses (mean difference [95%CI], -0.12% [-0.23% to -0.02%] and 0.01% [-0.05% to 0.07%], respectively). In people with type 2 diabetes and a baseline hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%, SGLT-2i produced significantly greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c compared with DPP-4i and may be preferred. SGLT-2i dose titration to a higher FDA-approved dose is recommended in suitable patients.

Transitioning to non-insulin therapy in a patient receiving high dose insulin.

In people with type 2 diabetes with evidence of obesity-related insulin resistance, use of insulin to treat hyperglycemia has not been shown to reduce macrovascular complications, despite widespread use for many years. However, newer classes of diabetes medications, designed to address the prevalent pathophysiologic defect of type 2 diabetes, have emerged. Consequently, in many patients, reduction of insulin doses or even total elimination is possible after the addition of these newer agents. The authors suggest a cautious approach in which people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who are on high insulin doses (>1.0 unit/kg/day) be treated with diabetes medications that showed evidence of cardiovascular benefit (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]), on whom close monitoring is crucial because they may be at particular risk for developing hypoglycemia. This approach can be labor intensive and may be challenging for busy primary care providers for who may have limited time to evaluate and follow the patient. The authors present a case report of adding a GLP-1RA to high insulin doses. If the hemoglobin A1c is <8.0% when GLP-1RA is added, insulin doses should be reduced by 20%. Patients should be monitored at least every 4 weeks initially until it is confirmed there is no hypoglycemia risk. If glycemic targets (defined as fasting or preprandial glucose level between 80 and 130 mg/dl) are consistently achieved, providers may consider proactively reducing insulin doses by 10-20% to avoid hypoglycemia. The authors recommend creating appropriate goals and expectation before initiating this process.

Health Literacy, Self-management Activities, and Glycemic Control Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Path Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated a novel composite measure of health literacy and numeracy by assessing its predictive validity for diabetes self-care activities and glycemic control. METHODS: Patients (N = 102) with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a family medicine clinic at an academic medical center. Combined health literacy was assessed by combining the results of the Health Literacy Scale and the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Self-management activities were assessed by the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities scale. Hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values were extracted from patients' medical records to assess glycemic control. Path models were used to test the predicted pathways linking health literacy and numeracy, independently and together, to self-management activities and glycemic control. RESULTS: The mean combined literacy score was 72.0 (range, 33-104); the mean health literacy score alone was 43.9 (range, 14-56); and the mean numeracy score alone was 28.1 (range, 8-48). The direct effects results showed that the combined health literacy score (B = 0.107, P < .05) and the health literacy score alone (B = 0.234, P < .05) were significantly associated with self-care activities. The health literacy score alone also had a significant direct effect on A1c (B = -0.081, P < .05). The indirect effects of the combined health literacy on glycemic control through self-care activities were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that the combined health literacy has predictive validity for self-care activities whereas the health literacy alone has predictive validity for glycemic control. More research is needed to validate these findings. Higher patient health literacy skills were not consistently associated with higher perceived numeracy skills. Additional attention and efforts should be made to make sure patients understand medical instructions involving numerical calculations.

Trends and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Diabetic Retinopathy Among Adults with Diagnosed Diabetes in North Carolina, 2000-2015.

BACKGROUND There is limited information available in North Carolina on the current burden of, and racial disparities in, diabetic retinopathy (DR), a major complication associated with diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aims to describe the overall trend of, and racial/ethnic disparities in, DR among adults with DM in North Carolina.METHODS Data were from 13 waves (2000, 2002-2010, 2012, 2013, and 2015) of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The study sample included 16,976 adults aged ≥ 40 years with DM in North Carolina. DR was identified by self-report by the question, "Has a doctor ever told you that diabetes has affected your eyes or that you had retinopathy?" The overall prevalence of DR was assessed during the time period, and was compared between whites and blacks. All analyses were conducted using Stata 13.0.RESULTS The prevalence of self-reported DR in North Carolina decreased from 27.2% in 2000 to 18.3% in 2015, a reduction of 33% (Trend P = .003). The age-adjusted DR prevalence in whites decreased from 21.7% to 17.6% (Trend P = .04), and in blacks from 39.4% to 20.2% (Trend P = .002). The declining rates in DR were not statistically different between whites and blacks (P = .06). Blacks were more likely to report DR (adjusted odds ratio = 1.20, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.40) during 2000-2015.CONCLUSION The prevalence of self-reported DR in adults with DM declined significantly in North Carolina in the past 15 years. While racial differences in some years appeared to be decreasing, the black-white disparity in DR prevalence during the entire period persisted. Focused efforts on reducing the gap are needed.

Validation of a combined health literacy and numeracy instrument for patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate a new consolidated measure of health literacy and numeracy (health literacy scale [HLS] plus the subjective numeracy scale [SNS]) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: A convenience sample (N = 102) of patients with T2DM was recruited from an academic family medicine center in the southeastern US between September-December 2017. Participants completed a questionnaire that included the composite HLS/SNS (22 questions) and a commonly used objective measure of health literacy-S-TOFHLA (40 questions). Internal reliability of the HLS/SNS was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion and construct validity was assessed against the S-TOFHLA. RESULTS: The composite HLS/SNS had good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83). A confirmatory factor analysis revealed there were four factors in the new instrument. Model fit indices showed good model-data fit (RMSEA = 0.08). The Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient between the HLS/SNS and the S-TOFHLA was 0.45 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the composite HLS/SNS is a reliable, valid instrument.

The Time Is Now: Diabetes Fellowships in the United States.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is a complex and costly chronic disease that is growing at an alarming rate. In the USA, we have a shortage of physicians who are experts in the care of patients with diabetes, traditionally endocrinologists. Therefore, the majority of patients with diabetes are managed by primary care physicians. With the rapid evolution in new diabetes medications and technologies, primary care physicians would benefit from additional focused and intensive training to manage the many aspects of this disease. Diabetes fellowships designed specifically for primary care physicians is one solution to rapidly expand a well-trained workforce in the management of patients with diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: There are currently two successful diabetes fellowship programs that meet this need for creating more expert diabetes clinicians and researchers outside of traditional endocrinology fellowships. We review the structure of these programs including funding and curriculum as well as the outcomes of the graduates. The growth of the diabetes epidemic has outpaced current resources for readily accessible expert diabetes clinical care. Diabetes fellowships aimed for primary care physicians are a successful strategy to train diabetes-focused physicians. Expansion of these programs should be encouraged and support to grow the cadre of clinicians with expertise in diabetes care and improve patient access and outcomes.

Interdisciplinary Diabetes Care: A New Model for Inpatient Diabetes Education.

A patient-centered interdisciplinary diabetes care model was implemented at Vidant Medical Center in Greenville, N.C., a 909-bed tertiary care teaching hospital, for the purpose of providing all patients with diabetes clear and concise instructions on diabetes survival skills. Survival skills education during hospitalization is needed for safe transition to community resources for continued and expanded diabetes self-management education. This article describes the process used to develop, implement, and evaluate the model. This initiative achieved substantial cost savings, with no significant changes in length of stay (LOS) or diabetes readmission rates. This patient-centered model demonstrates how a team of interdisciplinary health care professionals can integrate services in providing care for a large population of patients with chronic disease.

Provision of counseling on diabetes self-management: are there any age disparities?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are any age-related disparities in the frequency of provision of counseling and education for diabetes care in a large HMO in Central Texas. METHODS: EMR search from 13 primary care clinics on patients aged ≥18 years (n=1300) who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: There were no significant age differences in the frequency of provision of counseling about HBGM, diet, smoking or diabetes education. However, there were significant age differences in the provision of exercise counseling. Patients aged ≥75 were significantly less likely to have been provided exercise counseling than those aged <65 (adjusted OR=0.60; 95% CI=0.37-0.98). The mean HbA1c for patients aged ≥75 and 65-74 were significantly lower than that of patients aged <65 (8.9 vs. 9.0 vs. 9.7; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: While age-related variations in self-management protocols were not found, the provision of formal diabetes education was low (29.4%). The persistence of key risk factors in later life (e.g., obesity) underscores the need for better self-management protocols for older adults. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional efforts on strategies to increase counseling about lifestyle habits and diabetes self-management care by appropriate health care providers is needed. Diabetes counseling should be individually tailored in older population.