Pooyan Kazemian1,2,3, Fatma M Shebl1,2, Nicole McCann1, Rochelle P Walensky1,2,3,4, Deborah J Wexler3,5. 1. Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 5. Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Treatment advances in diabetes can meaningfully improve outcomes only if they effectively reach the populations at risk. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the cascade of US diabetes care, defined as diabetes diagnosis, linkage to care, and achievement of individual and combined treatment targets, improved from 2005 to 2016 and to investigate potential disparities in US diabetes care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative, serial cross-sectional studies included in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were evaluated. Data on nonpregnant US adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes who had reported fasting for 9 or more hours (n = 1742 diagnosed and 746 undiagnosed) were included. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to May 10, 2019. EXPOSURES: Time period (2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016), age, sex, race/ethnicity, health insurance, and educational level incorporated into logistic regression models predicting odds of target achievement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of participants overall and stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity who were linked to diabetes care and met glycemic (hemoglobin A1c <7.0%-8.5%, depending on age and complications), blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg), cholesterol level (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL), and smoking abstinence targets and a composite of all targets. RESULTS: In 2013-2016, of 1742 US adults with diagnosed diabetes, 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) were linked to diabetes care; 64% (95% CI, 58%-69%) met hemoglobin A1c level, 70% (95% CI, 64%-75%) met blood pressure level, and 57% (95% CI, 51%-62%) met cholesterol level targets; 85% were nonsmokers (95% CI, 82%-88%); and 23% (95% CI, 17%-29%) achieved the composite goal. Results were similar in 2005-2008 (composite 23%) and in 2009-2012 (composite 25%). There was no significant improvement in diagnosis or target achievement during the study period. Compared with middle-aged adults (45-64 years) with diagnosed diabetes, older patients (≥65 years) had higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.17-2.48) and younger adults (18-44 years) had lower odds (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) of meeting the composite target. Women had lower odds of achieving the composite target than men (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80). Non-Hispanic black individuals vs non-Hispanic white individuals had lower odds of achieving the composite target (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83). Having health insurance was the strongest predictor of linkage to diabetes care (aOR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.34-6.69). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It appears that the diabetes care cascade in the United States has not significantly improved between 2005 and 2016. This study's findings suggest that gaps in diabetes care that were present in 2005, particularly among younger adults (18-44 years), women, and nonwhite individuals, persist.
IMPORTANCE: Treatment advances in diabetes can meaningfully improve outcomes only if they effectively reach the populations at risk. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the cascade of US diabetes care, defined as diabetes diagnosis, linkage to care, and achievement of individual and combined treatment targets, improved from 2005 to 2016 and to investigate potential disparities in US diabetes care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative, serial cross-sectional studies included in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were evaluated. Data on nonpregnant US adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes who had reported fasting for 9 or more hours (n = 1742 diagnosed and 746 undiagnosed) were included. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to May 10, 2019. EXPOSURES: Time period (2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016), age, sex, race/ethnicity, health insurance, and educational level incorporated into logistic regression models predicting odds of target achievement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of participants overall and stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity who were linked to diabetes care and met glycemic (hemoglobin A1c <7.0%-8.5%, depending on age and complications), blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg), cholesterol level (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL), and smoking abstinence targets and a composite of all targets. RESULTS: In 2013-2016, of 1742 US adults with diagnosed diabetes, 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) were linked to diabetes care; 64% (95% CI, 58%-69%) met hemoglobin A1c level, 70% (95% CI, 64%-75%) met blood pressure level, and 57% (95% CI, 51%-62%) met cholesterol level targets; 85% were nonsmokers (95% CI, 82%-88%); and 23% (95% CI, 17%-29%) achieved the composite goal. Results were similar in 2005-2008 (composite 23%) and in 2009-2012 (composite 25%). There was no significant improvement in diagnosis or target achievement during the study period. Compared with middle-aged adults (45-64 years) with diagnosed diabetes, older patients (≥65 years) had higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.17-2.48) and younger adults (18-44 years) had lower odds (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) of meeting the composite target. Women had lower odds of achieving the composite target than men (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80). Non-Hispanic black individuals vs non-Hispanic white individuals had lower odds of achieving the composite target (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83). Having health insurance was the strongest predictor of linkage to diabetes care (aOR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.34-6.69). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It appears that the diabetes care cascade in the United States has not significantly improved between 2005 and 2016. This study's findings suggest that gaps in diabetes care that were present in 2005, particularly among younger adults (18-44 years), women, and nonwhite individuals, persist.
Authors: Eileen R Chasens; Monica Dinardo; Christopher C Imes; Jonna L Morris; Betty Braxter; Kyeongra Yang Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Anjali Gopalan; Pranita Mishra; Stacey E Alexeeff; Maruta A Blatchins; Eileen Kim; Alan Man; Andrew J Karter; Richard W Grant Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jalal Uddin; Gargya Malla; Andrea L Cherrington; Sha Zhu; Doyle M Cummings; Olivio J Clay; Todd M Brown; Loretta T Lee; Ruth W Kimokoti; Mary Cushman; Monika M Safford; April P Carson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Thomas W Martens; Janet S Lima; Elizabeth A Johnson; Jessica A Conry; Jennifer J Hoppe; Richard M Bergenstal; Anders L Carlson; Janet L Davidson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Sridharan Raghavan; Yuk-Lam Ho; Jason L Vassy; Daniel Posner; Jacqueline Honerlaw; Lauren Costa; Lawrence S Phillips; David R Gagnon; Peter W F Wilson; Kelly Cho Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-08-31
Authors: Lisa M Pollack; Mei Wang; Man Yee Mallory Leung; Graham Colditz; Cynthia Herrick; Su-Hsin Chang Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.018