Medication use and contextual factors associated with meeting guideline-based glycemic levels in diabetes among a nationally representative sample

Introduction Based on the long-lasting diabetes management challenges in the United States, the objective was to examine glycemic levels among a nationally representative sample of people with diabetes stratified by prescribed antihyperglycemic treatment regimens and contextual factors. Methods This serial cross-sectional study used United States population-based data from the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The study included non-pregnant adults (≥20 years old) with non-missing A1C and self-reported diabetes diagnosis from NHANES. Using A1C lab values, we dichotomized the outcome of glycemic levels into <7% versus ≥7% (meeting vs. not meeting guideline-based glycemic levels, respectively). We stratified the outcome by antihyperglycemic medication use and contextual factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, chronic conditions, diet, healthcare utilization, insurance, etc.) and performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results The 2042 adults with diabetes had a mean age of 60.63 (SE = 0.50), 55.26% (95% CI = 51.39–59.09) were male, and 51.82% (95% CI = 47.11–56.51) met guideline-based glycemic levels. Contextual factors associated with meeting guideline-based glycemic levels included reporting an “excellent” versus “poor” diet (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI = 1.92–9.25) and having no family history of diabetes (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.03–1.98). Contextual factors associated with lower odds of meeting guideline-based glycemic levels included taking insulin (aOR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.10–0.26), taking metformin (aOR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46–0.96), less frequent healthcare utilization [e.g., none vs. ≥4 times/year (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27–0.96)], being uninsured (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33–0.79), etc. Discussion Meeting guideline-based glycemic levels was associated with medication use (taking vs. not taking respective antihyperglycemic medication classes) and contextual factors. The timely, population-based estimates can inform national efforts to optimize diabetes management.

[1]  Eric L. Johnson,et al.  Introduction and Methodology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. , 2022, Diabetes care.

[2]  Eric L. Johnson,et al.  13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. , 2022, Diabetes care.

[3]  Eric L. Johnson,et al.  9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. , 2022, Diabetes care.

[4]  Eric L. Johnson,et al.  6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. , 2022, Diabetes care.

[5]  E. Huang,et al.  6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. , 2021, Diabetes care.

[6]  J. Coresh,et al.  Trends in Diabetes Treatment and Control in U.S. Adults, 1999-2018. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Takahiro Mori,et al.  Diabetes severity measured by treatment control status and number of anti-diabetic drugs affects presenteeism among workers with type 2 diabetes , 2021, BMC Public Health.

[8]  Marco Piñón,et al.  I Overview , 2020, The Diaries and Letters of Lord Woolton 1940-1945.

[9]  M. Kattan,et al.  Intensification patterns and the probability of HbA1c goal attainment in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: real‐world evidence for the concept of ‘intensification inertia’ , 2020, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[10]  M. Kattan,et al.  The Probability of A1C Goal Attainment in Patients With Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes in a Large Integrated Delivery System: A Prediction Model , 2020, Diabetes Care.

[11]  S. Rajpathak,et al.  Sociodemographic disparities in the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States , 2020, Current medical research and opinion.

[12]  Florence George,et al.  Age and glycemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States: An assessment from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. , 2019, Diabetes & metabolic syndrome.

[13]  R. Walensky,et al.  Evaluation of the Cascade of Diabetes Care in the United States, 2005-2016. , 2019, JAMA internal medicine.

[14]  Michael Fang Trends in the Prevalence of Diabetes Among U.S. Adults: 1999-2016. , 2018, American journal of preventive medicine.

[15]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[16]  B. Ward kg_nchs: A command for Korn-Graubard confidence intervals and National Center for Health Statistics' Data Presentation Standards for Proportions. , 2017, The Stata journal.

[17]  S. Edelman,et al.  Achievement of Glycated Hemoglobin Goals in the US Remains Unchanged Through 2014 , 2017, Diabetes Therapy.

[18]  J. Mckinlay,et al.  Relative Contributions of Socioeconomic, Local Environmental, Psychosocial, Lifestyle/Behavioral, Biophysiological, and Ancestral Factors to Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Type 2 Diabetes , 2016, Diabetes Care.

[19]  Andrea Giustina,et al.  The role of patient education in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: an overview , 2016, Endocrine.

[20]  D. Reda,et al.  Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  L. Egede,et al.  Impact of social determinants of health on outcomes for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. , 2014, Endocrine.

[22]  W. Herman,et al.  Prevalence and risk factors for diabetes-related foot complications in Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). , 2013, Journal of diabetes and its complications.

[23]  J. Saaddine,et al.  Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  V. Basevi,et al.  Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012 , 2011, Diabetes Care.

[25]  Roderick J A Little,et al.  A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non‐response , 2010, International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique.

[26]  J. Selby Health Systems, Patients Factors, and Quality of Care for Diabetes , 2010, Diabetes Care.

[27]  R. Holman,et al.  10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  R. Andersen National Health Surveys and the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use , 2008, Medical care.

[29]  Diederick Grobbee,et al.  Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  Xuegong Zhang,et al.  Finding distinct biclusters from background in gene expression matrices , 2007, Bioinformation.

[31]  Arleen F. Brown,et al.  Understanding the Gap Between Good Processes of Diabetes Care and Poor Intermediate Outcomes: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) , 2007, Medical care.

[32]  서정헌,et al.  반도체 공정 overview , 2001 .

[33]  A. Lanz,et al.  Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures , 2019, Swiss National Forest Inventory – Methods and Models of the Fourth Assessment.

[34]  M. Cooper,et al.  Mechanisms of diabetic complications. , 2013, Physiological reviews.

[35]  Mohammed K. Ali,et al.  Achievement of goals in U.S. Diabetes Care, 1999-2010. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  G. Foster,et al.  The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey , 2006 .