Comparison of Collaborative Goal Setting With Enhanced Education for Managing Diabetes-Associated Distress and Hemoglobin A1c Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes is a prevalent and morbid condition. Poor engagement with self-management can contribute to diabetes-associated distress and hinder diabetes control. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of Empowering Patients in Chronic Care (EPICC), an evidence-based intervention to improve diabetes-associated distress and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels after the intervention and after 6-month maintenance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This hybrid (implementation-effectiveness) randomized clinical trial was performed in Veterans Affairs clinics across Illinois, Indiana, and Texas from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. Participants included adults with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c level \u3e8.0%) who received primary care during the prior year in participating clinics. Data collection was completed on November 30, 2018, and data analysis was completed on June 30, 2020. All analyses were based on intention to treat. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in EPICC attended 6 group sessions based on a collaborative goal-setting theory led by health care professionals. Clinicians conducted individual motivational interviewing sessions after each group. Usual care was enhanced (EUC) with diabetes education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome consisted of changes in HbA1c levels after the intervention and during maintenance. Secondary outcomes included the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, and Lorig Self-efficacy Scale. Secondary implementation outcomes included reach, adoption, and implementation (number of sessions attended per patient). RESULTS: A total of 280 participants with type 2 diabetes (mean [SD] age, 67.2 [8.4] years; 264 men [94.3]; 134 non-Hispanic White individuals [47.9%]) were equally randomized to EPICC or EUC. Participants receiving EPICC had significant postintervention improvements in HbA1c levels (F1, 252 = 9.12, Cohen d = 0.36 [95% CI, 0.12-0.59]; P = .003) and DDS (F1, 245 = 9.06, Cohen d = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.13-0.60]; P = .003) compared with EUC. During maintenance, differences between the EUC and EPICC groups remained significant for DDS score (F1, 245 = 8.94, Cohen d = 0.36 [95% CI, 0.12-0.59]; P = .003) but not for HbA1c levels (F1, 252 = 0.29, Cohen d = 0.06 [95% CI, -0.17 to 0.30]; P = .60). Improvements in DDS scores were modest. There were no differences between EPICC and EUC in improvements after intervention or maintenance for either adherence or self-efficacy. Among all 4002 eligible patients, 280 (7.0%) enrolled in the study (reach). Each clinic conducted all planned EPICC sessions and cohorts (100% adoption). The EPICC group participants attended a mean (SD) of 4.34 (1.98) sessions, with 54 (38.6%) receiving all 6 sessions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A patient-empowerment approach using longitudinal collaborative goal setting and motivational interviewing is feasible in primary care. Improvements in HbA1c levels after the intervention were not sustained after maintenance. Modest improvements in diabetes-associated distress after the intervention were sustained after maintenance. Innovations to expand reach (eg, telemedicine-enabled shared appointments) and sustainability are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01876485

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Food Insecurity: Comparing Odds between Working-age Veterans and Nonveterans with Children

Background Low-income, working-age Veterans with children have risk for food insecurity. Less known is extent to which their risk compares to nonveterans. Purpose To evaluate odds of food insecurity for working-age Veterans with children compared to socioeconomically-matched nonveterans with children. Method We constructed a propensity score-matched cohort using 2011–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Covariate-adjusted logistic regressions estimated Veterans’ odds for overall food insecurity and for each level of severity compared to nonveterans. Findings We matched 155 Veterans to 310 nonveterans on gender, race/ethnicity, education, income. Models were adjusted for age, marital-status, depression, and listed matched variables. Although Veteran-status had no effect on overall food insecurity (odds ratio = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [0.62,1.93]), Veteran-status increased odds for very low food security (odds ratio = 2.71, 95% confidence interval [1.21, 6.07]). Discussion Veterans do not have higher odds of food insecurity than non-veterans, but they are more likely to have the more severe very low food security (often associated with hunger) than non-veterans. Investigation of food insecurity\u27s impact on Veteran health/well-being is needed