Dataset Information

HbA1c overtesting and overtreatment among US adults with controlled type 2 diabetes, 2001-13: observational population based study.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

What is the extent and effect of excessive testing for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) among adults with controlled type 2 diabetes?

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data from a national administrative claims database included commercially insured individuals in the USA, 2001-13. Study patients were aged 18 years or older, had type 2 diabetes with stable glycemic control (two consecutive tests showing HbA1c<7.0% within 24 months), did not use insulin, had no history of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, and were not pregnant. HbA1c testing frequency was measured within 24 months after the second (index) HbA1c test, and classified as guideline recommended (≤ 2 times/year), frequent (3-4 times/year), and excessive (≥ 5 times/year). Changes in treatment regimen were ascertained within three months of the index test.

Study answer and limitations

Of 31,545 patients in the study cohort (mean age 58 years; mean index HbA1c 6.2%), HbA1c testing frequency was excessive in 6% and frequent in 55%. Despite good glycemic control at baseline, treatment was further intensified by addition of glucose lowering drugs or insulin in 8.4% of patients (comprising 13%, 9%, and 7% of those tested excessively, frequently, and per guidelines, respectively; P<0.001). Compared with guideline recommended testing, excessive testing was associated with treatment intensification (odds ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.50)). Excessive testing rates remained unchanged in 2001-08, but fell significantly after 2009. The odds of excessive testing was 46% lower in 2011 than in 2001-02. The study population is not representative of all US patients with type 2 diabetes because it was restricted to commercially insured adults with stable and controlled diabetes not receiving insulin treatment. The study design did not capture the underuse of HbA1c testing.

What this study adds

In this US cohort of adults with stable and controlled type 2 diabetes, more than 60% received too many HbA1c tests, a practice associated with potential overtreatment with hypoglycemic drugs. Excessive testing contributes to the growing problem of waste in healthcare and increased patient burden in diabetes management.

Funding, competing interests, data sharing

NDS and RGM are funded partly by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS18339) and AcademyHealth Delivery System Science Fellowship (2013), respectively. No competing interests declared. Additional data are available from mccoy.rozalina@mayo.edu.

SUBMITTER: McCoy RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4673101 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In response to the type 2 diabetes epidemic, measuring HbA1c with the first-antenatal blood screen was recently recommended in NZ. This would enable prompt treatment of women with unrecognised type 2 diabetes, who may otherwise go undetected until the gestational diabetes (GDM) screen. We compare inter-ethnic antenatal screening practices to examine whether the HbA1c test would be accessed by ethnicities most at risk of diabetes, and we determined the prevalence of unrecognised type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in our pregnant population. This is an observational study of pregnancies in Christchurch NZ during 2008-2010. Utilising electronic databases, we matched maternal characteristics to first-antenatal bloods, HbA1c, and GDM screens (glucose challenge tests and oral glucose tolerance tests). Overall uptake of the first-antenatal bloods versus GDM screening was 83.1% and 53.8% respectively in 11,580 pregnancies. GDM screening was lowest in M?ori 39.3%, incidence proportion ratio (IPR) 0.77 (0.71, 0.84) compared with Europeans. By including HbA1c with the first-antenatal bloods, the number screened for diabetes increases by 28.5% in Europeans, 40.0% in M?ori, 28.1% in Pacific People, and 26.7% in 'Others' (majority of Asian descent). The combined prevalence of unrecognised type 2 diabetes and prediabetes by NZ criteria, HbA1c ?5.9% (41mmol/mol), was 2.1% in Europeans, M?ori 4.7% IPR 2.59 (1.71, 3.93), Pacific People 9.5% IPR 4.76 (3.10, 7.30), and 'Others' 6.2% IPR 2.99 (2.19, 4.07). Applying these prevalence data to 2013 NZ national births data, routine antenatal HbA1c testing could have identified type 2 diabetes in 0.44% and prediabetes in 3.96% of women. Routine HbA1c measurement in early pregnancy is an ideal screening opportunity, particularly benefitting vulnerable groups, reducing ethnic disparities in antenatal diabetes screening. This approach is likely to have world-wide relevance and applicability. Further research is underway to establish whether, as for type 2 diabetes, prompt treatment of prediabetes improves pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceIn older adults with multiple serious comorbidities and functional limitations, the harms of intensive glycemic control likely exceed the benefits.ObjectivesTo examine glycemic control levels among older adults with diabetes mellitus by health status and to estimate the prevalence of potential overtreatment of diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional analysis of the data on 1288 older adults (≥65 years) with diabetes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 through 2010 who had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement. All analyses incorporated complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates.ExposuresHealth status categories: very complex/poor, based on difficulty with 2 or more activities of daily living or dialysis dependence; complex/intermediate, based on difficulty with 2 or more instrumental activities of daily living or presence of 3 or more chronic conditions; and relatively healthy if none of these were present.Main outcomes and measuresTight glycemic control (HbA1c level, <7%) and use of diabetes medications likely to result in hypoglycemia (insulin or sulfonylureas).ResultsOf 1288 older adults with diabetes, 50.7% (95% CI, 46.6%-54.8%), representing 3.1 million (95% CI, 2.7-3.5), were relatively healthy, 28.1% (95% CI, 24.8%-31.5%), representing 1.7 million (95% CI, 1.4-2.0), had complex/intermediate health, and 21.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-24.4%), representing 1.3 million (95% CI, 1.1-1.5), had very complex/poor health. Overall, 61.5% (95% CI, 57.5%-65.3%), representing 3.8 million (95% CI, 3.4-4.2), had an HbA1c level of less than 7%; this proportion did not differ across health status categories (62.8% [95% CI, 56.9%-68.3%]) were relatively healthy, 63.0% (95% CI, 57.0%-68.6%) had complex/intermediate health, and 56.4% (95% CI, 49.7%-62.9%) had very complex/poor health (P = .26). Of the older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7%, 54.9% (95% CI, 50.4%-59.3%) were treated with either insulin or sulfonylureas; this proportion was similar across health status categories (50.8% [95% CI, 45.1%-56.5%] were relatively healthy, 58.7% [95% CI, 49.4%-67.5%] had complex/intermediate health, and 60.0% [95% CI, 51.4%-68.1%] had very complex/poor health; P = .14). During the 10 study years, there were no significant changes in the proportion of older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7% (P = .34), the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who had complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .27), or the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas despite having complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .65).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the harms of intensive treatment likely exceed the benefits for older patients with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health status, most of these adults reached tight glycemic targets between 2001 and 2010. Most of them were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, which may lead to severe hypoglycemia. Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of older adults with diabetes were potentially overtreated.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) programme, tailored for people living with type 1 diabetes, on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), self-management and psychosocial factors among individuals with HbA1c>60 mmol/mol compared with treatment as usual (TAU).SettingAn endocrinologic clinic in Sweden.ParticipantsIn this randomised controlled trial, 81 individuals with type 1 diabetes, aged 18-70 years with HbA1c>60 mmol/mol, were randomly assigned to either an ACT group intervention or TAU. Exclusion criteria were: unable to speak Swedish, untreated or severe psychiatric disease, cortisone treatment, untreated thyroid disease and newly started insulin pump therapy. At the 2-year follow-up, HbA1c was measured in 26 individuals.InterventionThe ACT programme comprised seven 2-hour sessions held over 14 weeks and focused on acceptance of stressful thoughts and emotions, and to promote value-based committed action.OutcomesThe primary outcome was HbA1c, and the secondary outcomes were measures of depression, anxiety, general stress, fear of hypoglycaemia, diabetes distress, self-care activities, psychological flexibility (general and related to diabetes) and quality of life. The primary endpoint was HbA1c 2 years after the intervention programme. Linear mixed models were used to test for an interaction effect between measurement time and group.ResultsLikelihood ratio test of nested models demonstrated no statistically significant interaction effect (χ2=0.49, p=0.485) between measurement time and group regarding HbA1c. However, a statistically significant interaction effect (likelihood ratio test χ2=12.63, p<0.001) was observed with improved scores on The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire in the intervention group after 1 and 2 years.ConclusionsNo statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding the primary outcome measure, HbA1c. However, the ACT programme showed a persistent beneficial impact on psychological flexibility in the intervention group. The dropout rate was higher than expected, which may indicate a challenge in this type of study.Trial registration numberNCT02914496.