S A Berkowitz1, S J Atlas, R W Grant, D J Wexler. 1. General Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
AIMS: To develop glycaemic goal individualization algorithms and assess potential impact on a healthcare system and different segments of the population with diabetes. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study of patients with diabetes in a primary care network age > 18 years with an HbA1c measured between 1 January and 31 December 2011. We applied diabetes guidelines to create targeted algorithms 1 and 2, which assigned HbA1c goals based on age, duration of diabetes (< 15 years or < 10 years), diabetes complications and Charlson co-morbidity score (< 6 or < 4) [targeted algorithm 2 was designed to assign more patients a goal < 64 mmol/mol (8.0%) than targeted algorithm 1]. Each patient's HbA1c was compared with these targeted goals and to the 'standard' goal < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%). Agreement was tested using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Overall, 55.7% of 12 199 patients would be considered controlled under the 'standard' approach, 61.2% under targeted algorithm 1 and 67.5% under targeted algorithm 2. Targeted algorithm 1 reclassified 1213 (23.6%) patients considered uncontrolled under the standard approach to controlled, P < 0.001. Targeted algorithm 2 reclassified 1844 (35.2%) patients, P < 0.001. Compared with those controlled under the standard goal, there was no significant difference in the proportion of those controlled using targeted goals who had Medicaid, had less than a high school diploma or received primary care in a federally qualified health centre. CONCLUSIONS: Two automated targeted algorithms would reclassify one quarter to one third of patients from uncontrolled to controlled within a primary care network without differentially affecting vulnerable patient subgroups.
AIMS: To develop glycaemic goal individualization algorithms and assess potential impact on a healthcare system and different segments of the population with diabetes. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study of patients with diabetes in a primary care network age > 18 years with an HbA1c measured between 1 January and 31 December 2011. We applied diabetes guidelines to create targeted algorithms 1 and 2, which assigned HbA1c goals based on age, duration of diabetes (< 15 years or < 10 years), diabetes complications and Charlson co-morbidity score (< 6 or < 4) [targeted algorithm 2 was designed to assign more patients a goal < 64 mmol/mol (8.0%) than targeted algorithm 1]. Each patient's HbA1c was compared with these targeted goals and to the 'standard' goal < 53 mmol/mol (7.0%). Agreement was tested using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Overall, 55.7% of 12 199 patients would be considered controlled under the 'standard' approach, 61.2% under targeted algorithm 1 and 67.5% under targeted algorithm 2. Targeted algorithm 1 reclassified 1213 (23.6%) patients considered uncontrolled under the standard approach to controlled, P < 0.001. Targeted algorithm 2 reclassified 1844 (35.2%) patients, P < 0.001. Compared with those controlled under the standard goal, there was no significant difference in the proportion of those controlled using targeted goals who had Medicaid, had less than a high school diploma or received primary care in a federally qualified health centre. CONCLUSIONS: Two automated targeted algorithms would reclassify one quarter to one third of patients from uncontrolled to controlled within a primary care network without differentially affecting vulnerable patient subgroups.
Authors: Gregory A Nichols; Teresa M Kimes; Joyce B Harp; Tzuyung Doug Kou; Kimberly G Brodovicz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sherita Hill Golden; Arleen Brown; Jane A Cauley; Marshall H Chin; Tiffany L Gary-Webb; Catherine Kim; Julie Ann Sosa; Anne E Sumner; Blair Anton Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Etie Moghissi; Margaret Tiktin; Irl B Hirsch; Silvio E Inzucchi; Saul Genuth Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Clemens S Hong; Steven J Atlas; Yuchiao Chang; S V Subramanian; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Michael J Barry; Richard W Grant Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rury R Holman; Sanjoy K Paul; M Angelyn Bethel; David R Matthews; H Andrew W Neil Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William Duckworth; Carlos Abraira; Thomas Moritz; Domenic Reda; Nicholas Emanuele; Peter D Reaven; Franklin J Zieve; Jennifer Marks; Stephen N Davis; Rodney Hayward; Stuart R Warren; Steven Goldman; Madeline McCarren; Mary Ellen Vitek; William G Henderson; Grant D Huang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mary E Morales; Michael H Epstein; Danelle E Marable; Sarah A Oo; Seth A Berkowitz Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Xin Wang; Shaan Khurshid; Christopher D Anderson; Kumar Dahal; Dana Weisenfeld; Tianrun Cai; Katherine P Liao; Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Shawn N Murphy; Steven J Atlas; Steven A Lubitz; Daniel E Singer Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Daniel M Blumenthal; Sidney E Howard; Jennifer Searl Como; Sandra M O'Keefe; Steven J Atlas; Daniel M Horn; Neil W Wagle; Jason H Wasfy; Robert W Yeh; Joshua P Metlay Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-06-01