Diabetes

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

Individuals with diabetes who are forced to switch to high-deductible health plans have more episodes of severe hypo- and hyperglycemia compared with those on conventional insurance plans, according to a new study.

Previous studies have shown that people with diabetes who are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have an increased financial burden, lower medication adherence, and more low-severity emergency department visits, and they delay care for cardiovascular conditions.  

But no study has looked at the plans’ impact on acute diabetes complications and glycemic control, wrote the authors in JAMA Network Open.

They found evidence that the high-dollar plans were associated with increased odds of severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, and that the risk increased with each successive year of enrollment. Low-income individuals, Blacks, and Hispanics were disproportionately more impacted, noted senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

Overall, “enrollees may be rationing or forgoing necessary care, which is detrimental to their health and ultimately increases the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with diabetes,” they concluded.

A systematic review of eight studies published in Endocrine Practice in 2021 backs up this latest finding. That analysis reported enrollees in HDHPs often forgo routine care and monitoring, and that they have lower medication adherence, leading to an increase in total health care expenditures for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and preventable complications.
 

Increased frequency of hypoglycemia is detrimental

The new study published in JAMA Network Open was based on data for adults enrolled in private insurance programs from 2010 to 2018. Researchers analyzed medical and pharmacy claims data contained in a large health insurance claims database, comparing adults with diabetes who had been in an HDHP for at least 1 year (and after a year of being in a conventional plan), with those who were in a conventional plan.

They identified 42,326 individuals who had been switched from a conventional plan to an HDHP. Of those, 7,375 (17.4%) were Black, 5,740 (13.6%) were Hispanic, 26,572 (62.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 6,880 (16.3%) had a household income below $40,000 a year.

Baseline characteristics of the 202,729 people in conventional plans were similar to those in the HDHP group. 

The median deductible for individuals in the HDHP group was $1,500 and for families it was $3,000, compared with $350 and $800, respectively, for those in conventional plans.

The odds of having any severe hypoglycemic event were significantly higher in the HDHP group (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; P < .001). Each year of HDHP enrollment increased the odds of a hypoglycemia-related ED or hospital visit by 2% (OR, 1.02; P = .04).  

Aware that only a small number of severe hypoglycemic events, as well as an unknown number of such events, result in an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and that “the decision to seek ED or hospital care may be influenced by health plan assignment,” the authors also looked at office visits where severe, or any, hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was coded or documented.

The proportion of HDHP enrollees where hypoglycemia was coded was 14% higher than for conventional plan enrollees (OR, 1.14; P < .001), with each year of the high-dollar plan enrollment increasing these odds by 6% (OR, 1.06; P < .001).

The tally of hypoglycemic events is an underestimate because HDHP enrollees might forgo ambulatory care for cost-related reasons, wrote the authors. Hypoglycemia might also be treated at home. But that is not necessarily a positive, they noted.

“The increased frequency of severe hypoglycemia – no matter where managed and discussed – is a sign of detrimental effects of HDHP enrollment for people living with diabetes.”

They found that individuals of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than were White patients to have an increase in hypoglycemia-related office visits, which suggests that those patients were deferring care, wrote Dr. McCoy and colleagues.

Switching to an HDHP was associated with a significant increase in the odds of having at least one hyperglycemia-related ED or hospital visit per year (OR, 1.25; P < .001). Each successive year in the plan increased these odds by 5% (OR, 1.05; P = .02). However, the authors found no increase in hyperglycemia-related office visits.

“Because severe dysglycemic events may be prevented with optimal glycemic management, the increase in the frequency of their occurrence suggests important gaps in access to and implementation of diabetes therapy,” wrote the authors.

They noted that people with diabetes already face high out-of-pocket expenses. A high-deductible plan might make care even less affordable, they wrote.

“Individuals may be forced to ration medications, glucose-monitoring supplies, diabetes self-management education, food, and other essential cares to the detriment of their health,” they noted.

The authors added that because the study was observational, they could not delve into the root causes of the glycemic events or whether, for instance, any HDHP enrollees also had health savings accounts (HSAs) that might help defray costs.

They suggested that employers offer a wide variety of health plans, or if they are offering only a high-deductible plan that they be more transparent about potential costs. “Previous studies have shown that enrollees are not fully aware of the details within their health plans and may be focusing on reducing the cost of monthly premiums – not overall care – when choosing health plans.”

The authors said employers should find ways to fund HSAs for people with low incomes – those who appear to be most vulnerable to the effects of HDHPs. 

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2017 found that low-income and HSA-eligible individuals with diabetes switched to an HDHP had major increases in emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the Mayo Clinic K2R Research Award, and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. McCoy has reported receiving grants from the NIDDK, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and personal fees from Emmi for the development of patient education materials about diabetes outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with diabetes who are forced to switch to high-deductible health plans have more episodes of severe hypo- and hyperglycemia compared with those on conventional insurance plans, according to a new study.

Previous studies have shown that people with diabetes who are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have an increased financial burden, lower medication adherence, and more low-severity emergency department visits, and they delay care for cardiovascular conditions.  

But no study has looked at the plans’ impact on acute diabetes complications and glycemic control, wrote the authors in JAMA Network Open.

They found evidence that the high-dollar plans were associated with increased odds of severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, and that the risk increased with each successive year of enrollment. Low-income individuals, Blacks, and Hispanics were disproportionately more impacted, noted senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

Overall, “enrollees may be rationing or forgoing necessary care, which is detrimental to their health and ultimately increases the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with diabetes,” they concluded.

A systematic review of eight studies published in Endocrine Practice in 2021 backs up this latest finding. That analysis reported enrollees in HDHPs often forgo routine care and monitoring, and that they have lower medication adherence, leading to an increase in total health care expenditures for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and preventable complications.
 

Increased frequency of hypoglycemia is detrimental

The new study published in JAMA Network Open was based on data for adults enrolled in private insurance programs from 2010 to 2018. Researchers analyzed medical and pharmacy claims data contained in a large health insurance claims database, comparing adults with diabetes who had been in an HDHP for at least 1 year (and after a year of being in a conventional plan), with those who were in a conventional plan.

They identified 42,326 individuals who had been switched from a conventional plan to an HDHP. Of those, 7,375 (17.4%) were Black, 5,740 (13.6%) were Hispanic, 26,572 (62.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 6,880 (16.3%) had a household income below $40,000 a year.

Baseline characteristics of the 202,729 people in conventional plans were similar to those in the HDHP group. 

The median deductible for individuals in the HDHP group was $1,500 and for families it was $3,000, compared with $350 and $800, respectively, for those in conventional plans.

The odds of having any severe hypoglycemic event were significantly higher in the HDHP group (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; P < .001). Each year of HDHP enrollment increased the odds of a hypoglycemia-related ED or hospital visit by 2% (OR, 1.02; P = .04).  

Aware that only a small number of severe hypoglycemic events, as well as an unknown number of such events, result in an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and that “the decision to seek ED or hospital care may be influenced by health plan assignment,” the authors also looked at office visits where severe, or any, hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was coded or documented.

The proportion of HDHP enrollees where hypoglycemia was coded was 14% higher than for conventional plan enrollees (OR, 1.14; P < .001), with each year of the high-dollar plan enrollment increasing these odds by 6% (OR, 1.06; P < .001).

The tally of hypoglycemic events is an underestimate because HDHP enrollees might forgo ambulatory care for cost-related reasons, wrote the authors. Hypoglycemia might also be treated at home. But that is not necessarily a positive, they noted.

“The increased frequency of severe hypoglycemia – no matter where managed and discussed – is a sign of detrimental effects of HDHP enrollment for people living with diabetes.”

They found that individuals of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than were White patients to have an increase in hypoglycemia-related office visits, which suggests that those patients were deferring care, wrote Dr. McCoy and colleagues.

Switching to an HDHP was associated with a significant increase in the odds of having at least one hyperglycemia-related ED or hospital visit per year (OR, 1.25; P < .001). Each successive year in the plan increased these odds by 5% (OR, 1.05; P = .02). However, the authors found no increase in hyperglycemia-related office visits.

“Because severe dysglycemic events may be prevented with optimal glycemic management, the increase in the frequency of their occurrence suggests important gaps in access to and implementation of diabetes therapy,” wrote the authors.

They noted that people with diabetes already face high out-of-pocket expenses. A high-deductible plan might make care even less affordable, they wrote.

“Individuals may be forced to ration medications, glucose-monitoring supplies, diabetes self-management education, food, and other essential cares to the detriment of their health,” they noted.

The authors added that because the study was observational, they could not delve into the root causes of the glycemic events or whether, for instance, any HDHP enrollees also had health savings accounts (HSAs) that might help defray costs.

They suggested that employers offer a wide variety of health plans, or if they are offering only a high-deductible plan that they be more transparent about potential costs. “Previous studies have shown that enrollees are not fully aware of the details within their health plans and may be focusing on reducing the cost of monthly premiums – not overall care – when choosing health plans.”

The authors said employers should find ways to fund HSAs for people with low incomes – those who appear to be most vulnerable to the effects of HDHPs. 

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2017 found that low-income and HSA-eligible individuals with diabetes switched to an HDHP had major increases in emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the Mayo Clinic K2R Research Award, and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. McCoy has reported receiving grants from the NIDDK, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and personal fees from Emmi for the development of patient education materials about diabetes outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with diabetes who are forced to switch to high-deductible health plans have more episodes of severe hypo- and hyperglycemia compared with those on conventional insurance plans, according to a new study.

Previous studies have shown that people with diabetes who are enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have an increased financial burden, lower medication adherence, and more low-severity emergency department visits, and they delay care for cardiovascular conditions.  

But no study has looked at the plans’ impact on acute diabetes complications and glycemic control, wrote the authors in JAMA Network Open.

They found evidence that the high-dollar plans were associated with increased odds of severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events, and that the risk increased with each successive year of enrollment. Low-income individuals, Blacks, and Hispanics were disproportionately more impacted, noted senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

Overall, “enrollees may be rationing or forgoing necessary care, which is detrimental to their health and ultimately increases the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with diabetes,” they concluded.

A systematic review of eight studies published in Endocrine Practice in 2021 backs up this latest finding. That analysis reported enrollees in HDHPs often forgo routine care and monitoring, and that they have lower medication adherence, leading to an increase in total health care expenditures for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and preventable complications.
 

Increased frequency of hypoglycemia is detrimental

The new study published in JAMA Network Open was based on data for adults enrolled in private insurance programs from 2010 to 2018. Researchers analyzed medical and pharmacy claims data contained in a large health insurance claims database, comparing adults with diabetes who had been in an HDHP for at least 1 year (and after a year of being in a conventional plan), with those who were in a conventional plan.

They identified 42,326 individuals who had been switched from a conventional plan to an HDHP. Of those, 7,375 (17.4%) were Black, 5,740 (13.6%) were Hispanic, 26,572 (62.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 6,880 (16.3%) had a household income below $40,000 a year.

Baseline characteristics of the 202,729 people in conventional plans were similar to those in the HDHP group. 

The median deductible for individuals in the HDHP group was $1,500 and for families it was $3,000, compared with $350 and $800, respectively, for those in conventional plans.

The odds of having any severe hypoglycemic event were significantly higher in the HDHP group (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; P < .001). Each year of HDHP enrollment increased the odds of a hypoglycemia-related ED or hospital visit by 2% (OR, 1.02; P = .04).  

Aware that only a small number of severe hypoglycemic events, as well as an unknown number of such events, result in an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and that “the decision to seek ED or hospital care may be influenced by health plan assignment,” the authors also looked at office visits where severe, or any, hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia was coded or documented.

The proportion of HDHP enrollees where hypoglycemia was coded was 14% higher than for conventional plan enrollees (OR, 1.14; P < .001), with each year of the high-dollar plan enrollment increasing these odds by 6% (OR, 1.06; P < .001).

The tally of hypoglycemic events is an underestimate because HDHP enrollees might forgo ambulatory care for cost-related reasons, wrote the authors. Hypoglycemia might also be treated at home. But that is not necessarily a positive, they noted.

“The increased frequency of severe hypoglycemia – no matter where managed and discussed – is a sign of detrimental effects of HDHP enrollment for people living with diabetes.”

They found that individuals of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than were White patients to have an increase in hypoglycemia-related office visits, which suggests that those patients were deferring care, wrote Dr. McCoy and colleagues.

Switching to an HDHP was associated with a significant increase in the odds of having at least one hyperglycemia-related ED or hospital visit per year (OR, 1.25; P < .001). Each successive year in the plan increased these odds by 5% (OR, 1.05; P = .02). However, the authors found no increase in hyperglycemia-related office visits.

“Because severe dysglycemic events may be prevented with optimal glycemic management, the increase in the frequency of their occurrence suggests important gaps in access to and implementation of diabetes therapy,” wrote the authors.

They noted that people with diabetes already face high out-of-pocket expenses. A high-deductible plan might make care even less affordable, they wrote.

“Individuals may be forced to ration medications, glucose-monitoring supplies, diabetes self-management education, food, and other essential cares to the detriment of their health,” they noted.

The authors added that because the study was observational, they could not delve into the root causes of the glycemic events or whether, for instance, any HDHP enrollees also had health savings accounts (HSAs) that might help defray costs.

They suggested that employers offer a wide variety of health plans, or if they are offering only a high-deductible plan that they be more transparent about potential costs. “Previous studies have shown that enrollees are not fully aware of the details within their health plans and may be focusing on reducing the cost of monthly premiums – not overall care – when choosing health plans.”

The authors said employers should find ways to fund HSAs for people with low incomes – those who appear to be most vulnerable to the effects of HDHPs. 

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2017 found that low-income and HSA-eligible individuals with diabetes switched to an HDHP had major increases in emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the Mayo Clinic K2R Research Award, and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. Dr. McCoy has reported receiving grants from the NIDDK, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and personal fees from Emmi for the development of patient education materials about diabetes outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²).

In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.

In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.

“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.

“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”

As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.

Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²).

In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.

In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.

“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.

“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”

As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.

Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²).

In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.

In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.

“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.

“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”

As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.

Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To teach internal medicine residents quality improvement (QI) principles in an effort to improve resident knowledge and comfort with QI, as well as address quality care gaps in resident clinic primary care patient panels.

Design: A QI curriculum was implemented for all residents rotating through a primary care block over a 6-month period. Residents completed Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) modules, participated in a QI workshop, and received panel data reports, ultimately completing a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle to improve colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control.

Setting and participants: This project was undertaken at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. All internal medicine residents were included, with 55 (73%) of the 75 residents completing the presurvey, and 39 (52%) completing the postsurvey.

Measurements: We administered a 10-question pre- and postsurvey looking at resident attitudes toward and comfort with QI and familiarity with their panel data as well as measured rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control in resident panels.

Results: There was an increase in the numbers of residents who performed a PDSA cycle (P = .002), completed outreach based on their panel data (P = .02), and felt comfortable in both creating aim statements and designing and implementing PDSA cycles (P < .0001). The residents’ knowledge of their panel data significantly increased. There was no significant improvement in hypertension control, but there was an increase in colorectal cancer screening rates (P < .0001).

Conclusion: Providing panel data and performing targeted QI interventions can improve resident comfort with QI, translating to improvement in patient outcomes.

Keywords: quality improvement, resident education, medical education, care gaps, quality metrics.

As quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of clinical practice, residency training programs have continued to evolve in how best to teach QI. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program requirements mandate that core competencies in residency programs include practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice.¹ Residents should receive education in QI, receive data on quality metrics and benchmarks related to their patient population, and participate in QI activities. The Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program was established to provide feedback to institutions on 6 focused areas, including patient safety and health care quality. In visits to institutions across the United States, the CLER committees found that many residents had limited knowledge of QI concepts and limited access to data on quality metrics and benchmarks.²

There are many barriers to implementing a QI curriculum in residency programs, and creating and maintaining successful strategies has proven challenging.³ Many QI curricula for internal medicine residents have been described in the literature, but the results of many of these studies focus on resident self-assessment of QI knowledge and numbers of projects rather than on patient outcomes.^4-13 As there is some evidence suggesting that patients treated by residents have worse outcomes on ambulatory quality measures when compared with patients treated by staff physicians,^14,15 it is important to also look at patient outcomes when evaluating a QI curriculum. Experts in education recommend the following to optimize learning: exposure to both didactic and experiential opportunities, connection to health system improvement efforts, and assessment of patient outcomes in addition to learner feedback.^16,17 A study also found that providing panel data to residents could improve quality metrics.¹⁸

In this study, we sought to investigate the effects of a resident QI intervention during an ambulatory block on both residents’ self-assessments of QI knowledge and attitudes as well as on patient quality metrics.

Methods

Curriculum

We implemented this educational initiative at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. Co-located with the 415-bed academic medical center in downtown Boston, the practice serves more than 40,000 patients, approximately 7000 of whom are cared for by resident primary care physicians (PCPs). The internal medicine residents rotate through the primary care clinic as part of continuity clinic during ambulatory or elective blocks. In addition to continuity clinic, the residents have 2 dedicated 3-week primary care rotations during the course of an academic year. Primary care rotations consist of 5 clinic sessions a week as well as structured teaching sessions. Each resident inherits a panel of patients from an outgoing senior resident, with an average panel size of 96 patients per resident.

Prior to this study intervention, we did not do any formal QI teaching to our residents as part of their primary care curriculum, and previous panel management had focused more on chart reviews of patients whom residents perceived to be higher risk. Residents from all 3 years were included in the intervention. We taught a QI curriculum to our residents from January 2018 to June 2018 during the 3-week primary care rotation, which consisted of the following components:

• Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) module QI 102 completed independently online.
• A 2-hour QI workshop led by 1 of 2 primary care faculty with backgrounds in QI, during which residents were taught basic principles of QI, including how to craft aim statements and design plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, and participated in a hands-on QI activity designed to model rapid cycle improvement (the Paper Airplane Factory¹⁹).
• Distribution of individualized reports of residents’ patient panel data by email at the start of the primary care block that detailed patients’ overall rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension (HTN) control, along with the average resident panel rates and the average attending panel rates. The reports also included a list of all residents’ patients who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening or whose last blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled (systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥  90 mm Hg). These reports were originally designed by our practice’s QI team and run and exported in Microsoft Excel format monthly by our information technology (IT) administrator.
• Instruction on aim statements as a group, followed by the expectation that each resident create an individualized aim statement tailored to each resident’s patient panel rates, with the PDSA cycle to be implemented during the remainder of the primary care rotation, focusing on improvement of colorectal cancer screening and HTN control (see supplementary eFigure 1 online for the worksheet used for the workshop).
• Residents were held accountable for their interventions by various check-ins. At the end of the primary care block, residents were required to submit their completed worksheets showing the intervention they had undertaken and when it was performed. The 2 primary care attendings primarily responsible for QI education would review the resident’s work approximately 1 to 2 months after they submitted their worksheets describing their intervention. These attendings sent the residents personalized feedback based on whether the intervention had been completed or successful as evidenced by documentation in the chart, including direct patient outreach by phone, letter, or portal; outreach to the resident coordinator; scheduled follow-up appointment; or booking or completion of colorectal cancer screening. Along with this feedback, residents were also sent suggestions for next steps. Resident preceptors were copied on the email to facilitate reinforcement of the goals and plans. Finally, the resident preceptors also helped with accountability by going through the residents’ worksheets and patient panel metrics with the residents during biannual evaluations.

Evaluation

Residents were surveyed with a 10-item questionnaire pre and post intervention regarding their attitudes toward QI, understanding of QI principles, and familiarity with their patient panel data. Surveys were anonymous and distributed via the SurveyMonkey platform (see supplementary eFigure 2 online). Residents were asked if they had ever performed a PDSA cycle, performed patient outreach, or performed an intervention and whether they knew the rates of diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening in their patient panels. Questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale were used to assess comfort with panel management, developing an aim statement, designing and implementing a PDSA cycle, as well as interest in pursuing QI as a career. For the purposes of analysis, these questions were dichotomized into “somewhat comfortable” and “very comfortable” vs “neutral,” “somewhat uncomfortable,” and “very uncomfortable.” Similarly, we dichotomized the question about interest in QI as a career into “somewhat interested” and “very interested” vs “neutral,” “somewhat disinterested,” and “very disinterested.” As the surveys were anonymous, we were unable to pair the pre- and postintervention surveys and used a chi-square test to evaluate whether there was an association between survey assessments pre intervention vs post intervention and a positive or negative response to the question.

We also examined rates of HTN control and colorectal cancer screening in all 75 resident panels pre and post intervention. The paired t-test was used to determine whether the mean change from pre to post intervention was significant. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.) was used for all analyses. Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained from the Tufts Medical Center IRB. There was no funding received for this study.

 

 

Results

Respondents

Of the 75 residents, 55 (73%) completed the survey prior to the intervention, and 39 (52%) completed the survey after the intervention.

Panel Knowledge and Intervention

Prior to the intervention, 45% of residents had performed a PDSA cycle, compared with 77% post intervention, which was a significant increase (P = .002) (Table 1). Sixty-two percent of residents had performed outreach or an intervention based on their patient panel reports prior to the intervention, compared with 85% of residents post intervention, which was also a significant increase (P = .02). The increase post intervention was not 100%, as there were residents who either missed the initial workshop or who did not follow through with their planned intervention. Common interventions included the residents giving their coordinators a list of patients to call to schedule appointments, utilizing fellow team members (eg, pharmacists, social workers) for targeted patient outreach, or calling patients themselves to reestablish a connection.

In terms of knowledge of their patient panels, prior to the intervention, 55%, 62%, and 62% of residents knew the rates of patients in their panel with diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. After the intervention, the residents’ knowledge of these rates increased significantly, to 85% for diabetes (P = .002), 97% for HTN (P < .0001), and 97% for colorectal cancer screening (P < .0001).

Comfort With QI Approaches

Prior to the intervention, 82% of residents were comfortable managing their primary care panel, which did not change significantly post intervention (Table 2). The residents’ comfort with designing an aim statement did significantly increase, from 55% to 95% (P < .0001). The residents also had a significant increase in comfort with both designing and implementing a PDSA cycle. Prior to the intervention, 22% felt comfortable designing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 79% (P < .0001) post intervention, and 24% felt comfortable implementing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 77% (P < .0001) post intervention.

Patient Outcome Measures

The rate of HTN control in the residents' patient panels did not change significantly pre and post intervention (Table 3). The rate of resident patients who were up to date with colorectal cancer screening increased by 6.5% post intervention (P < .0001).

Interest in QI as a Career

As part of the survey, residents were asked how interested they were in making QI a part of their career. Fifty percent of residents indicated an interest in QI pre intervention, and 54% indicated an interest post intervention, which was not a significant difference (P = .72).

Discussion

In this study, we found that integration of a QI curriculum into a primary care rotation improved both residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, which translated to improvement in patient outcomes. Several previous studies have found improvements in resident self-assessment or knowledge after implementation of a QI curriculum.^4-13 Liao et al implemented a longitudinal curriculum including both didactic and experiential components and found an improvement in both QI confidence and knowledge.³ Similarly, Duello et al⁸ found that a curriculum including both didactic lectures and QI projects improved subjective QI knowledge and comfort. Interestingly, Fok and Wong⁹ found that resident knowledge could be sustained post curriculum after completion of a QI project, suggesting that experiential learning may be helpful in maintaining knowledge.

Studies also have looked at providing performance data to residents. Hwang et al¹⁸ found that providing audit and feedback in the form of individual panel performance data to residents compared with practice targets led to statistically significant improvement in cancer screening rates and composite quality score, indicating that there is tremendous potential in providing residents with their data. While the ACGME mandates that residents should receive data on their quality metrics, on CLER visits, many residents interviewed noted limited access to data on their metrics and benchmarks.^1,2

Though previous studies have individually looked at teaching QI concepts, providing panel data, or targeting select metrics, our study was unique in that it reviewed both self-reported resident outcomes data as well as actual patient outcomes. In addition to finding increased knowledge of patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, we found a significant increase in colorectal cancer screening rates post intervention. We thought this finding was particularly important given some data that residents' patients have been found to have worse outcomes on quality metrics compared with patients cared for by staff physicians.^14,15 Given that having a resident physician as a PCP has been associated with failing to meet quality measures, it is especially important to focus targeted quality improvement initiatives in this patient population to reduce disparities in care.

We found that residents had improved knowledge on their patient panels as a result of this initiative. The residents were noted to have a higher knowledge of their HTN and colorectal cancer screening rates in comparison to their diabetes metrics. We suspect this is because residents are provided with multiple metrics related to diabetes, including process measures such as A1c testing, as well as outcome measures such as A1c control, so it may be harder for them to elucidate exactly how they are doing with their diabetes patients, whereas in HTN control and colorectal cancer screening, there is only 1 associated metric. Interestingly, even though HTN and colorectal cancer screening were the 2 measures focused on in the study, the residents had a significant improvement in knowledge of the rates of diabetes in their panel as well. This suggests that even just receiving data alone is valuable, hopefully translating to better outcomes with better baseline understanding of panels. We believe that our intervention was successful because it included both a didactic and an experiential component, as well as the use of individual panel performance data.

There were several limitations to our study. It was performed at a single institution, translating to a small sample size. Our data analysis was limited because we were unable to pair our pre- and postintervention survey responses because we used an anonymous survey. We also did not have full participation in postintervention surveys from all residents, which may have biased the study in favor of high performers. Another limitation was that our survey relied on self-reported outcomes for the questions about the residents knowing their patient panels.

This study required a 2-hour workshop every 3 weeks led by a faculty member trained in QI. Given the amount of time needed for the curriculum, this study may be difficult to replicate at other institutions, especially if faculty with an interest or training in QI are not available. Given our finding that residents had increased knowledge of their patient panels after receiving panel metrics, simply providing data with the goal of smaller, focused interventions may be easier to implement. At our institution, we discontinued the longer 2-hour QI workshops designed to teach QI approaches more broadly. We continue to provide individualized panel data to all residents during their primary care rotations and conduct half-hour, small group workshops with the interns that focus on drafting aim statements and planning interventions. All residents are required to submit worksheets to us at the end of their primary care blocks listing their current rates of each predetermined metric and laying out their aim statements and planned interventions. Residents also continue to receive feedback from our faculty with expertise in QI afterward on their plans and evidence of follow-through in the chart, with their preceptors included on the feedback emails. Even without the larger QI workshop, this approach has continued to be successful and appreciated. In fact, it does appear as though improvement in colorectal cancer screening has been sustained over several years. At the end of our study period, the resident patient colorectal cancer screening rate rose from 34% to 43%, and for the 2021-2022 academic year, the rate rose further, from 46% to 50%.

Given that the resident clinic patient population is at higher risk overall, targeted outreach and approaches to improve quality must be continued. Future areas of research include looking at which interventions, whether QI curriculum, provision of panel data, or required panel management interventions, translate to the greatest improvements in patient outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Conclusion

Our study showed that a dedicated QI curriculum for the residents and access to quality metric data improved both resident knowledge and comfort with QI approaches. Beyond resident-centered outcomes, there was also translation to improved patient outcomes, with a significant increase in colon cancer screening rates post intervention.

Corresponding author: Kinjalika Sathi, MD, 800 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To teach internal medicine residents quality improvement (QI) principles in an effort to improve resident knowledge and comfort with QI, as well as address quality care gaps in resident clinic primary care patient panels.

Design: A QI curriculum was implemented for all residents rotating through a primary care block over a 6-month period. Residents completed Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) modules, participated in a QI workshop, and received panel data reports, ultimately completing a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle to improve colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control.

Setting and participants: This project was undertaken at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. All internal medicine residents were included, with 55 (73%) of the 75 residents completing the presurvey, and 39 (52%) completing the postsurvey.

Measurements: We administered a 10-question pre- and postsurvey looking at resident attitudes toward and comfort with QI and familiarity with their panel data as well as measured rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control in resident panels.

Results: There was an increase in the numbers of residents who performed a PDSA cycle (P = .002), completed outreach based on their panel data (P = .02), and felt comfortable in both creating aim statements and designing and implementing PDSA cycles (P < .0001). The residents’ knowledge of their panel data significantly increased. There was no significant improvement in hypertension control, but there was an increase in colorectal cancer screening rates (P < .0001).

Conclusion: Providing panel data and performing targeted QI interventions can improve resident comfort with QI, translating to improvement in patient outcomes.

Keywords: quality improvement, resident education, medical education, care gaps, quality metrics.

As quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of clinical practice, residency training programs have continued to evolve in how best to teach QI. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program requirements mandate that core competencies in residency programs include practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice.¹ Residents should receive education in QI, receive data on quality metrics and benchmarks related to their patient population, and participate in QI activities. The Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program was established to provide feedback to institutions on 6 focused areas, including patient safety and health care quality. In visits to institutions across the United States, the CLER committees found that many residents had limited knowledge of QI concepts and limited access to data on quality metrics and benchmarks.²

There are many barriers to implementing a QI curriculum in residency programs, and creating and maintaining successful strategies has proven challenging.³ Many QI curricula for internal medicine residents have been described in the literature, but the results of many of these studies focus on resident self-assessment of QI knowledge and numbers of projects rather than on patient outcomes.^4-13 As there is some evidence suggesting that patients treated by residents have worse outcomes on ambulatory quality measures when compared with patients treated by staff physicians,^14,15 it is important to also look at patient outcomes when evaluating a QI curriculum. Experts in education recommend the following to optimize learning: exposure to both didactic and experiential opportunities, connection to health system improvement efforts, and assessment of patient outcomes in addition to learner feedback.^16,17 A study also found that providing panel data to residents could improve quality metrics.¹⁸

In this study, we sought to investigate the effects of a resident QI intervention during an ambulatory block on both residents’ self-assessments of QI knowledge and attitudes as well as on patient quality metrics.

Methods

Curriculum

We implemented this educational initiative at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. Co-located with the 415-bed academic medical center in downtown Boston, the practice serves more than 40,000 patients, approximately 7000 of whom are cared for by resident primary care physicians (PCPs). The internal medicine residents rotate through the primary care clinic as part of continuity clinic during ambulatory or elective blocks. In addition to continuity clinic, the residents have 2 dedicated 3-week primary care rotations during the course of an academic year. Primary care rotations consist of 5 clinic sessions a week as well as structured teaching sessions. Each resident inherits a panel of patients from an outgoing senior resident, with an average panel size of 96 patients per resident.

Prior to this study intervention, we did not do any formal QI teaching to our residents as part of their primary care curriculum, and previous panel management had focused more on chart reviews of patients whom residents perceived to be higher risk. Residents from all 3 years were included in the intervention. We taught a QI curriculum to our residents from January 2018 to June 2018 during the 3-week primary care rotation, which consisted of the following components:

• Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) module QI 102 completed independently online.
• A 2-hour QI workshop led by 1 of 2 primary care faculty with backgrounds in QI, during which residents were taught basic principles of QI, including how to craft aim statements and design plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, and participated in a hands-on QI activity designed to model rapid cycle improvement (the Paper Airplane Factory¹⁹).
• Distribution of individualized reports of residents’ patient panel data by email at the start of the primary care block that detailed patients’ overall rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension (HTN) control, along with the average resident panel rates and the average attending panel rates. The reports also included a list of all residents’ patients who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening or whose last blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled (systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥  90 mm Hg). These reports were originally designed by our practice’s QI team and run and exported in Microsoft Excel format monthly by our information technology (IT) administrator.
• Instruction on aim statements as a group, followed by the expectation that each resident create an individualized aim statement tailored to each resident’s patient panel rates, with the PDSA cycle to be implemented during the remainder of the primary care rotation, focusing on improvement of colorectal cancer screening and HTN control (see supplementary eFigure 1 online for the worksheet used for the workshop).
• Residents were held accountable for their interventions by various check-ins. At the end of the primary care block, residents were required to submit their completed worksheets showing the intervention they had undertaken and when it was performed. The 2 primary care attendings primarily responsible for QI education would review the resident’s work approximately 1 to 2 months after they submitted their worksheets describing their intervention. These attendings sent the residents personalized feedback based on whether the intervention had been completed or successful as evidenced by documentation in the chart, including direct patient outreach by phone, letter, or portal; outreach to the resident coordinator; scheduled follow-up appointment; or booking or completion of colorectal cancer screening. Along with this feedback, residents were also sent suggestions for next steps. Resident preceptors were copied on the email to facilitate reinforcement of the goals and plans. Finally, the resident preceptors also helped with accountability by going through the residents’ worksheets and patient panel metrics with the residents during biannual evaluations.

Evaluation

Residents were surveyed with a 10-item questionnaire pre and post intervention regarding their attitudes toward QI, understanding of QI principles, and familiarity with their patient panel data. Surveys were anonymous and distributed via the SurveyMonkey platform (see supplementary eFigure 2 online). Residents were asked if they had ever performed a PDSA cycle, performed patient outreach, or performed an intervention and whether they knew the rates of diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening in their patient panels. Questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale were used to assess comfort with panel management, developing an aim statement, designing and implementing a PDSA cycle, as well as interest in pursuing QI as a career. For the purposes of analysis, these questions were dichotomized into “somewhat comfortable” and “very comfortable” vs “neutral,” “somewhat uncomfortable,” and “very uncomfortable.” Similarly, we dichotomized the question about interest in QI as a career into “somewhat interested” and “very interested” vs “neutral,” “somewhat disinterested,” and “very disinterested.” As the surveys were anonymous, we were unable to pair the pre- and postintervention surveys and used a chi-square test to evaluate whether there was an association between survey assessments pre intervention vs post intervention and a positive or negative response to the question.

We also examined rates of HTN control and colorectal cancer screening in all 75 resident panels pre and post intervention. The paired t-test was used to determine whether the mean change from pre to post intervention was significant. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.) was used for all analyses. Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained from the Tufts Medical Center IRB. There was no funding received for this study.

 

 

Results

Respondents

Of the 75 residents, 55 (73%) completed the survey prior to the intervention, and 39 (52%) completed the survey after the intervention.

Panel Knowledge and Intervention

Prior to the intervention, 45% of residents had performed a PDSA cycle, compared with 77% post intervention, which was a significant increase (P = .002) (Table 1). Sixty-two percent of residents had performed outreach or an intervention based on their patient panel reports prior to the intervention, compared with 85% of residents post intervention, which was also a significant increase (P = .02). The increase post intervention was not 100%, as there were residents who either missed the initial workshop or who did not follow through with their planned intervention. Common interventions included the residents giving their coordinators a list of patients to call to schedule appointments, utilizing fellow team members (eg, pharmacists, social workers) for targeted patient outreach, or calling patients themselves to reestablish a connection.

In terms of knowledge of their patient panels, prior to the intervention, 55%, 62%, and 62% of residents knew the rates of patients in their panel with diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. After the intervention, the residents’ knowledge of these rates increased significantly, to 85% for diabetes (P = .002), 97% for HTN (P < .0001), and 97% for colorectal cancer screening (P < .0001).

Comfort With QI Approaches

Prior to the intervention, 82% of residents were comfortable managing their primary care panel, which did not change significantly post intervention (Table 2). The residents’ comfort with designing an aim statement did significantly increase, from 55% to 95% (P < .0001). The residents also had a significant increase in comfort with both designing and implementing a PDSA cycle. Prior to the intervention, 22% felt comfortable designing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 79% (P < .0001) post intervention, and 24% felt comfortable implementing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 77% (P < .0001) post intervention.

Patient Outcome Measures

The rate of HTN control in the residents' patient panels did not change significantly pre and post intervention (Table 3). The rate of resident patients who were up to date with colorectal cancer screening increased by 6.5% post intervention (P < .0001).

Interest in QI as a Career

As part of the survey, residents were asked how interested they were in making QI a part of their career. Fifty percent of residents indicated an interest in QI pre intervention, and 54% indicated an interest post intervention, which was not a significant difference (P = .72).

Discussion

In this study, we found that integration of a QI curriculum into a primary care rotation improved both residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, which translated to improvement in patient outcomes. Several previous studies have found improvements in resident self-assessment or knowledge after implementation of a QI curriculum.^4-13 Liao et al implemented a longitudinal curriculum including both didactic and experiential components and found an improvement in both QI confidence and knowledge.³ Similarly, Duello et al⁸ found that a curriculum including both didactic lectures and QI projects improved subjective QI knowledge and comfort. Interestingly, Fok and Wong⁹ found that resident knowledge could be sustained post curriculum after completion of a QI project, suggesting that experiential learning may be helpful in maintaining knowledge.

Studies also have looked at providing performance data to residents. Hwang et al¹⁸ found that providing audit and feedback in the form of individual panel performance data to residents compared with practice targets led to statistically significant improvement in cancer screening rates and composite quality score, indicating that there is tremendous potential in providing residents with their data. While the ACGME mandates that residents should receive data on their quality metrics, on CLER visits, many residents interviewed noted limited access to data on their metrics and benchmarks.^1,2

Though previous studies have individually looked at teaching QI concepts, providing panel data, or targeting select metrics, our study was unique in that it reviewed both self-reported resident outcomes data as well as actual patient outcomes. In addition to finding increased knowledge of patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, we found a significant increase in colorectal cancer screening rates post intervention. We thought this finding was particularly important given some data that residents' patients have been found to have worse outcomes on quality metrics compared with patients cared for by staff physicians.^14,15 Given that having a resident physician as a PCP has been associated with failing to meet quality measures, it is especially important to focus targeted quality improvement initiatives in this patient population to reduce disparities in care.

We found that residents had improved knowledge on their patient panels as a result of this initiative. The residents were noted to have a higher knowledge of their HTN and colorectal cancer screening rates in comparison to their diabetes metrics. We suspect this is because residents are provided with multiple metrics related to diabetes, including process measures such as A1c testing, as well as outcome measures such as A1c control, so it may be harder for them to elucidate exactly how they are doing with their diabetes patients, whereas in HTN control and colorectal cancer screening, there is only 1 associated metric. Interestingly, even though HTN and colorectal cancer screening were the 2 measures focused on in the study, the residents had a significant improvement in knowledge of the rates of diabetes in their panel as well. This suggests that even just receiving data alone is valuable, hopefully translating to better outcomes with better baseline understanding of panels. We believe that our intervention was successful because it included both a didactic and an experiential component, as well as the use of individual panel performance data.

There were several limitations to our study. It was performed at a single institution, translating to a small sample size. Our data analysis was limited because we were unable to pair our pre- and postintervention survey responses because we used an anonymous survey. We also did not have full participation in postintervention surveys from all residents, which may have biased the study in favor of high performers. Another limitation was that our survey relied on self-reported outcomes for the questions about the residents knowing their patient panels.

This study required a 2-hour workshop every 3 weeks led by a faculty member trained in QI. Given the amount of time needed for the curriculum, this study may be difficult to replicate at other institutions, especially if faculty with an interest or training in QI are not available. Given our finding that residents had increased knowledge of their patient panels after receiving panel metrics, simply providing data with the goal of smaller, focused interventions may be easier to implement. At our institution, we discontinued the longer 2-hour QI workshops designed to teach QI approaches more broadly. We continue to provide individualized panel data to all residents during their primary care rotations and conduct half-hour, small group workshops with the interns that focus on drafting aim statements and planning interventions. All residents are required to submit worksheets to us at the end of their primary care blocks listing their current rates of each predetermined metric and laying out their aim statements and planned interventions. Residents also continue to receive feedback from our faculty with expertise in QI afterward on their plans and evidence of follow-through in the chart, with their preceptors included on the feedback emails. Even without the larger QI workshop, this approach has continued to be successful and appreciated. In fact, it does appear as though improvement in colorectal cancer screening has been sustained over several years. At the end of our study period, the resident patient colorectal cancer screening rate rose from 34% to 43%, and for the 2021-2022 academic year, the rate rose further, from 46% to 50%.

Given that the resident clinic patient population is at higher risk overall, targeted outreach and approaches to improve quality must be continued. Future areas of research include looking at which interventions, whether QI curriculum, provision of panel data, or required panel management interventions, translate to the greatest improvements in patient outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Conclusion

Our study showed that a dedicated QI curriculum for the residents and access to quality metric data improved both resident knowledge and comfort with QI approaches. Beyond resident-centered outcomes, there was also translation to improved patient outcomes, with a significant increase in colon cancer screening rates post intervention.

Corresponding author: Kinjalika Sathi, MD, 800 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To teach internal medicine residents quality improvement (QI) principles in an effort to improve resident knowledge and comfort with QI, as well as address quality care gaps in resident clinic primary care patient panels.

Design: A QI curriculum was implemented for all residents rotating through a primary care block over a 6-month period. Residents completed Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) modules, participated in a QI workshop, and received panel data reports, ultimately completing a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle to improve colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control.

Setting and participants: This project was undertaken at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. All internal medicine residents were included, with 55 (73%) of the 75 residents completing the presurvey, and 39 (52%) completing the postsurvey.

Measurements: We administered a 10-question pre- and postsurvey looking at resident attitudes toward and comfort with QI and familiarity with their panel data as well as measured rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension control in resident panels.

Results: There was an increase in the numbers of residents who performed a PDSA cycle (P = .002), completed outreach based on their panel data (P = .02), and felt comfortable in both creating aim statements and designing and implementing PDSA cycles (P < .0001). The residents’ knowledge of their panel data significantly increased. There was no significant improvement in hypertension control, but there was an increase in colorectal cancer screening rates (P < .0001).

Conclusion: Providing panel data and performing targeted QI interventions can improve resident comfort with QI, translating to improvement in patient outcomes.

Keywords: quality improvement, resident education, medical education, care gaps, quality metrics.

As quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of clinical practice, residency training programs have continued to evolve in how best to teach QI. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Common Program requirements mandate that core competencies in residency programs include practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice.¹ Residents should receive education in QI, receive data on quality metrics and benchmarks related to their patient population, and participate in QI activities. The Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program was established to provide feedback to institutions on 6 focused areas, including patient safety and health care quality. In visits to institutions across the United States, the CLER committees found that many residents had limited knowledge of QI concepts and limited access to data on quality metrics and benchmarks.²

There are many barriers to implementing a QI curriculum in residency programs, and creating and maintaining successful strategies has proven challenging.³ Many QI curricula for internal medicine residents have been described in the literature, but the results of many of these studies focus on resident self-assessment of QI knowledge and numbers of projects rather than on patient outcomes.^4-13 As there is some evidence suggesting that patients treated by residents have worse outcomes on ambulatory quality measures when compared with patients treated by staff physicians,^14,15 it is important to also look at patient outcomes when evaluating a QI curriculum. Experts in education recommend the following to optimize learning: exposure to both didactic and experiential opportunities, connection to health system improvement efforts, and assessment of patient outcomes in addition to learner feedback.^16,17 A study also found that providing panel data to residents could improve quality metrics.¹⁸

In this study, we sought to investigate the effects of a resident QI intervention during an ambulatory block on both residents’ self-assessments of QI knowledge and attitudes as well as on patient quality metrics.

Methods

Curriculum

We implemented this educational initiative at Tufts Medical Center Primary Care, Boston, Massachusetts, the primary care teaching practice for all 75 internal medicine residents at Tufts Medical Center. Co-located with the 415-bed academic medical center in downtown Boston, the practice serves more than 40,000 patients, approximately 7000 of whom are cared for by resident primary care physicians (PCPs). The internal medicine residents rotate through the primary care clinic as part of continuity clinic during ambulatory or elective blocks. In addition to continuity clinic, the residents have 2 dedicated 3-week primary care rotations during the course of an academic year. Primary care rotations consist of 5 clinic sessions a week as well as structured teaching sessions. Each resident inherits a panel of patients from an outgoing senior resident, with an average panel size of 96 patients per resident.

Prior to this study intervention, we did not do any formal QI teaching to our residents as part of their primary care curriculum, and previous panel management had focused more on chart reviews of patients whom residents perceived to be higher risk. Residents from all 3 years were included in the intervention. We taught a QI curriculum to our residents from January 2018 to June 2018 during the 3-week primary care rotation, which consisted of the following components:

• Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) module QI 102 completed independently online.
• A 2-hour QI workshop led by 1 of 2 primary care faculty with backgrounds in QI, during which residents were taught basic principles of QI, including how to craft aim statements and design plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, and participated in a hands-on QI activity designed to model rapid cycle improvement (the Paper Airplane Factory¹⁹).
• Distribution of individualized reports of residents’ patient panel data by email at the start of the primary care block that detailed patients’ overall rates of colorectal cancer screening and hypertension (HTN) control, along with the average resident panel rates and the average attending panel rates. The reports also included a list of all residents’ patients who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening or whose last blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled (systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥  90 mm Hg). These reports were originally designed by our practice’s QI team and run and exported in Microsoft Excel format monthly by our information technology (IT) administrator.
• Instruction on aim statements as a group, followed by the expectation that each resident create an individualized aim statement tailored to each resident’s patient panel rates, with the PDSA cycle to be implemented during the remainder of the primary care rotation, focusing on improvement of colorectal cancer screening and HTN control (see supplementary eFigure 1 online for the worksheet used for the workshop).
• Residents were held accountable for their interventions by various check-ins. At the end of the primary care block, residents were required to submit their completed worksheets showing the intervention they had undertaken and when it was performed. The 2 primary care attendings primarily responsible for QI education would review the resident’s work approximately 1 to 2 months after they submitted their worksheets describing their intervention. These attendings sent the residents personalized feedback based on whether the intervention had been completed or successful as evidenced by documentation in the chart, including direct patient outreach by phone, letter, or portal; outreach to the resident coordinator; scheduled follow-up appointment; or booking or completion of colorectal cancer screening. Along with this feedback, residents were also sent suggestions for next steps. Resident preceptors were copied on the email to facilitate reinforcement of the goals and plans. Finally, the resident preceptors also helped with accountability by going through the residents’ worksheets and patient panel metrics with the residents during biannual evaluations.

Evaluation

Residents were surveyed with a 10-item questionnaire pre and post intervention regarding their attitudes toward QI, understanding of QI principles, and familiarity with their patient panel data. Surveys were anonymous and distributed via the SurveyMonkey platform (see supplementary eFigure 2 online). Residents were asked if they had ever performed a PDSA cycle, performed patient outreach, or performed an intervention and whether they knew the rates of diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening in their patient panels. Questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale were used to assess comfort with panel management, developing an aim statement, designing and implementing a PDSA cycle, as well as interest in pursuing QI as a career. For the purposes of analysis, these questions were dichotomized into “somewhat comfortable” and “very comfortable” vs “neutral,” “somewhat uncomfortable,” and “very uncomfortable.” Similarly, we dichotomized the question about interest in QI as a career into “somewhat interested” and “very interested” vs “neutral,” “somewhat disinterested,” and “very disinterested.” As the surveys were anonymous, we were unable to pair the pre- and postintervention surveys and used a chi-square test to evaluate whether there was an association between survey assessments pre intervention vs post intervention and a positive or negative response to the question.

We also examined rates of HTN control and colorectal cancer screening in all 75 resident panels pre and post intervention. The paired t-test was used to determine whether the mean change from pre to post intervention was significant. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.) was used for all analyses. Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained from the Tufts Medical Center IRB. There was no funding received for this study.

 

 

Results

Respondents

Of the 75 residents, 55 (73%) completed the survey prior to the intervention, and 39 (52%) completed the survey after the intervention.

Panel Knowledge and Intervention

Prior to the intervention, 45% of residents had performed a PDSA cycle, compared with 77% post intervention, which was a significant increase (P = .002) (Table 1). Sixty-two percent of residents had performed outreach or an intervention based on their patient panel reports prior to the intervention, compared with 85% of residents post intervention, which was also a significant increase (P = .02). The increase post intervention was not 100%, as there were residents who either missed the initial workshop or who did not follow through with their planned intervention. Common interventions included the residents giving their coordinators a list of patients to call to schedule appointments, utilizing fellow team members (eg, pharmacists, social workers) for targeted patient outreach, or calling patients themselves to reestablish a connection.

In terms of knowledge of their patient panels, prior to the intervention, 55%, 62%, and 62% of residents knew the rates of patients in their panel with diabetes, HTN, and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. After the intervention, the residents’ knowledge of these rates increased significantly, to 85% for diabetes (P = .002), 97% for HTN (P < .0001), and 97% for colorectal cancer screening (P < .0001).

Comfort With QI Approaches

Prior to the intervention, 82% of residents were comfortable managing their primary care panel, which did not change significantly post intervention (Table 2). The residents’ comfort with designing an aim statement did significantly increase, from 55% to 95% (P < .0001). The residents also had a significant increase in comfort with both designing and implementing a PDSA cycle. Prior to the intervention, 22% felt comfortable designing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 79% (P < .0001) post intervention, and 24% felt comfortable implementing a PDSA cycle, which increased to 77% (P < .0001) post intervention.

Patient Outcome Measures

The rate of HTN control in the residents' patient panels did not change significantly pre and post intervention (Table 3). The rate of resident patients who were up to date with colorectal cancer screening increased by 6.5% post intervention (P < .0001).

Interest in QI as a Career

As part of the survey, residents were asked how interested they were in making QI a part of their career. Fifty percent of residents indicated an interest in QI pre intervention, and 54% indicated an interest post intervention, which was not a significant difference (P = .72).

Discussion

In this study, we found that integration of a QI curriculum into a primary care rotation improved both residents’ knowledge of their patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, which translated to improvement in patient outcomes. Several previous studies have found improvements in resident self-assessment or knowledge after implementation of a QI curriculum.^4-13 Liao et al implemented a longitudinal curriculum including both didactic and experiential components and found an improvement in both QI confidence and knowledge.³ Similarly, Duello et al⁸ found that a curriculum including both didactic lectures and QI projects improved subjective QI knowledge and comfort. Interestingly, Fok and Wong⁹ found that resident knowledge could be sustained post curriculum after completion of a QI project, suggesting that experiential learning may be helpful in maintaining knowledge.

Studies also have looked at providing performance data to residents. Hwang et al¹⁸ found that providing audit and feedback in the form of individual panel performance data to residents compared with practice targets led to statistically significant improvement in cancer screening rates and composite quality score, indicating that there is tremendous potential in providing residents with their data. While the ACGME mandates that residents should receive data on their quality metrics, on CLER visits, many residents interviewed noted limited access to data on their metrics and benchmarks.^1,2

Though previous studies have individually looked at teaching QI concepts, providing panel data, or targeting select metrics, our study was unique in that it reviewed both self-reported resident outcomes data as well as actual patient outcomes. In addition to finding increased knowledge of patient panels and comfort with QI approaches, we found a significant increase in colorectal cancer screening rates post intervention. We thought this finding was particularly important given some data that residents' patients have been found to have worse outcomes on quality metrics compared with patients cared for by staff physicians.^14,15 Given that having a resident physician as a PCP has been associated with failing to meet quality measures, it is especially important to focus targeted quality improvement initiatives in this patient population to reduce disparities in care.

We found that residents had improved knowledge on their patient panels as a result of this initiative. The residents were noted to have a higher knowledge of their HTN and colorectal cancer screening rates in comparison to their diabetes metrics. We suspect this is because residents are provided with multiple metrics related to diabetes, including process measures such as A1c testing, as well as outcome measures such as A1c control, so it may be harder for them to elucidate exactly how they are doing with their diabetes patients, whereas in HTN control and colorectal cancer screening, there is only 1 associated metric. Interestingly, even though HTN and colorectal cancer screening were the 2 measures focused on in the study, the residents had a significant improvement in knowledge of the rates of diabetes in their panel as well. This suggests that even just receiving data alone is valuable, hopefully translating to better outcomes with better baseline understanding of panels. We believe that our intervention was successful because it included both a didactic and an experiential component, as well as the use of individual panel performance data.

There were several limitations to our study. It was performed at a single institution, translating to a small sample size. Our data analysis was limited because we were unable to pair our pre- and postintervention survey responses because we used an anonymous survey. We also did not have full participation in postintervention surveys from all residents, which may have biased the study in favor of high performers. Another limitation was that our survey relied on self-reported outcomes for the questions about the residents knowing their patient panels.

This study required a 2-hour workshop every 3 weeks led by a faculty member trained in QI. Given the amount of time needed for the curriculum, this study may be difficult to replicate at other institutions, especially if faculty with an interest or training in QI are not available. Given our finding that residents had increased knowledge of their patient panels after receiving panel metrics, simply providing data with the goal of smaller, focused interventions may be easier to implement. At our institution, we discontinued the longer 2-hour QI workshops designed to teach QI approaches more broadly. We continue to provide individualized panel data to all residents during their primary care rotations and conduct half-hour, small group workshops with the interns that focus on drafting aim statements and planning interventions. All residents are required to submit worksheets to us at the end of their primary care blocks listing their current rates of each predetermined metric and laying out their aim statements and planned interventions. Residents also continue to receive feedback from our faculty with expertise in QI afterward on their plans and evidence of follow-through in the chart, with their preceptors included on the feedback emails. Even without the larger QI workshop, this approach has continued to be successful and appreciated. In fact, it does appear as though improvement in colorectal cancer screening has been sustained over several years. At the end of our study period, the resident patient colorectal cancer screening rate rose from 34% to 43%, and for the 2021-2022 academic year, the rate rose further, from 46% to 50%.

Given that the resident clinic patient population is at higher risk overall, targeted outreach and approaches to improve quality must be continued. Future areas of research include looking at which interventions, whether QI curriculum, provision of panel data, or required panel management interventions, translate to the greatest improvements in patient outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Conclusion

Our study showed that a dedicated QI curriculum for the residents and access to quality metric data improved both resident knowledge and comfort with QI approaches. Beyond resident-centered outcomes, there was also translation to improved patient outcomes, with a significant increase in colon cancer screening rates post intervention.

Corresponding author: Kinjalika Sathi, MD, 800 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.