Adding rapid-acting insulin or GLP-1 receptor agonist to basal insulin: outcomes in a community setting

Onur Başer (MEF Author)##nofulltext##To evaluate real-world outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)receiving basal insulin, who initiate add-on therapy with a rapid-acting insulin (RAI) or aglucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist.Data were extracted retrospectively from a U.S. health claims database. Adults withT2DM on basal insulin who added an RAI (basal+RAI) or GLP-1 receptor agonist (basal+GLP-1) were included. Propensity score matching (1 up to 3 ratio) was used to control for differencesin baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and health resource utilization. Endpointsincluded prevalence of hypoglycemia, pancreatic events, all-cause and diabetes-relatedresource utilization, and costs at 1 year follow-up. Overall, 6,718 matched patients were included: 5,013 basal+RAI and 1,705basal+GLP1. Patients in both groups experienced a similar proportion of any hypoglycemicevent (P = .4079). Hypoglycemic events leading to hospitalization were higher in the basal+RAIcohort (2.7% vs. 1.8%; P = .0444). The basal+GLP-1 cohort experienced fewer all-cause(13.55% vs. 18.61%; P<.0001) and diabetes-related hospitalizations (11.79% vs. 15.68%;P<.0001). The basal+GLP-1 cohort had lower total all-cause health care costs ($18,413 vs.$20,821; P = .0002), but similar diabetes-related costs ($9,134 vs.$8,985; P<.0001) comparedwith the basal+RAI cohort. Add-on therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist in T2DM patients receiving basalinsulin was associated with fewer hospitalizations and lower total all-cause costs compared withadd-on therapy using a RAI, and could be considered an alternative to a RAI in certain patientswith T2DM, who do not achieve effective glycemic control with basal insulin.WOS:000350032700012Scopus - Affiliation ID: 60105072PMID: 25148821Science Citation Index ExpandedQ2ArticleUluslararası işbirliği ile yapılan - EVETOcak2015YÖK - 2014-1

Developing a COVID-19 Medical Respite Unit for Adults Experiencing Homelessness: Lessons Learned from an Interdisciplinary Community-Academic Partnership

Individuals experiencing homelessness are at particularly high risk for infection, severe illness, and death from COVID19. Local public health initiatives to address the pandemic should include medical respite services for individuals experiencing homelessness with documented or suspected COVID-19 infection, who are well enough to not be admitted to the hospital. We are a group of public health officials, clinicians, academics, and non-profit leaders who partnered with the City of New Haven, Connecticut to develop a COVID-19 medical respite program for people experiencing homelessness in our community. We seek to describe the key processes and challenges inherent to designing the COVID-19 respite including: the balance between patient autonomy and a public health agenda, how to deliver trauma informed, equitable, patient-centered, high quality care with low resources, and approaches to program evaluation.There is no funding specific to this article. This publication was made possible by the Yale National Clinician Scholars Program and by CTSA Grant Number TL1 TR001864 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NIH.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155396/1/Nash main article.pdfDescription of Nash main article.pdf : Main articl

Preferences and priorities for relapsed multiple myeloma treatments among patients and caregivers in the United States

Introduction/Background: This study aimed to describe patient and caregiver preferences for treatments of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Materials and Methods: A survey including discrete-choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) exercises was conducted among US patients with relapsed or refractory MM and their caregivers. The DCE included six attributes with varying levels including progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and mode and frequency of administration. In addition, the impact of treatment cost was assessed using a fixed-choice question. The BWS exercise included 18 items (modes and frequency of administration, additional treatment convenience, and toxicity items). The survey was administered online to patients recruited from the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation CoMMpass study (NCT01454297). Results: The final samples consisted of 94 patients and 32 caregivers. Avoiding severe nerve damage was most important to patients, followed by longer PFS. Caregivers considered PFS to be the most important attribute. We estimate that a third or more of patients were cost-sensitive, meaning their treatment preference was altered based on cost implications. Caregivers were not cost-sensitive. The three most bothersome treatment features in the BWS exercise were risk of kidney failure, lowering white blood cell counts, and weakening the immune system. Conclusion: Patients with relapsed or refractory MM and their caregivers consider many factors including efficacy, toxicity, mode/frequency of administration, and cost in their decisions regarding treatment options. The study provides a basis for future Research on patient and caregiver treatment preferences, which could be incorporated into shared decision-making with physicians

Impact of depression on functional disability and out-of-pocket medical expenditures in the elderly.

Impact of depression on functional disability and out-of-pocket medical expenditures in the elderly

A Comparison of Depressive Symptoms in Stroke and Primary Care: Applying Rasch Models to Evaluate the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale

AbstractObjectivesClinical trials and community-based studies often include the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) as a measure of depression outcome. We compared responses to symptom-related items on the CES-D by depressed stroke and primary-care patients for several purposes: 1) to illustrate the use of Item Response Theory (IRT)-based (Rasch) models for comparing scale functioning across different patient subgroups; and 2) to inform clinicians and outcome researchers about scale functioning and depressive symptomatology in stroke- compared with primary care-based depression.MethodsTwo data sources were analyzed, including 32 depressed patients who were 3 months poststroke, and 366 depressed primary-care patients. Presence of depression was based on a CES-D score 16 or higher. Rasch models were used to assess item fit and compare item hierarchies between depressed primary-care and stroke patients.ResultsItem hierarchies were similar for poststroke depression and primary care-based depression. Interpersonal disruption items were the most difficult to endorse for both groups. No items misfit the scale in primary-care depression. Items relating to restless sleep, unfriendliness, and crying slightly misfit the scale in stroke patients, that is, may measure a different trait. Differential item functioning (DIF) between the groups was identified for items relating to appetite, restless sleep, crying, and feeling disliked.ConclusionsResults generally supported the use of the CES-D as measure of depression outcome, particularly in primary care-based depression. DIF may imply that slightly different clusters of depressive symptoms are reported by depressed stroke patients compared with primary care, but this is conjectural given the small stroke sample size and the same items have been previously associated with bias in studies of large nonstroke samples. This study found Rasch models to be useful tools to investigate scale performance for different clinical applications

Implementing Panel Management for Hypertension in a Low-Income, Urban, Primary Care Setting

Objective: Panel management is a system of care that targets groups of patients with similar needs to improve their quality of care. The purpose of this pilot was to determine whether panel management could improve blood pressure control in patients with previously uncontrolled hypertension and to explore how panel management can be integrated in an urban, low-income, primary care setting. Methods: The practice coach model was used to assist a clinical site in forming a quality improvement team to implement panel management. The team created a patient registry to track hypertensive patients over time and to recall patients with uncontrolled hypertension for planned care visits during which evidence-based interventions for hypertension were delivered. Percent of patients gaining control of blood pressure and change in blood pressure were measured between 6 and 9 months after enrollment. Qualitative interviews of clinic staff were completed to explore strengths and weaknesses of program implementation. Results: Forty patients with uncontrolled hypertension were enrolled in the pilot, and 27.5% gained blood pressure control by 9 months after enrollment ( P < .001). The average systolic blood pressure decreased by 16 mm Hg from 156.5 to 140.5 mm Hg ( P < .001), and the average diastolic blood pressure decreased by 3.8 mm Hg from 85 to 81.2 mm Hg ( P = .03). Staff interviews were generally positive; however, several areas for improvement were identified. Conclusion: Panel management for hypertension can be effective and can be implemented in a low-income, urban, primary care clinic setting given appropriate staffing allocation