Montori, Victor M

ABSTRACT Objective Women carry disproportionate shares of caregiving and other life demands that may compound the work of diabetes self-management. We sought to examine gender differences in overall and digital treatment burden and their key contributors. Research Design and Methods Cross-sectional analysis of two cohorts of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes attending outpatient endocrinology visits who completed the Treatment Burden Questionnaire Plus Digital (TBQ+D) (n=472). Multivariable regression estimated gender differences in overall and digital treatment burden, ability to live a normal life, and sustainability of current self- care effort, adjusting for age, diabetes type, insulin intensity, HbA1c, and cohort. Item-level analyses identified contributors to observed differences. Results Compared to men, women reported higher median overall treatment burden (33 vs 20, adjusted mean difference 10.6 points, 95% CI 5.1–16.3; p <.0001) and digital treatment burden (13 vs 7, adjusted mean difference 3.5 points, 95% CI 1.1–6.1; p =.009). They also had higher odds of not living a normal life (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.18–2.67; p =0.006) and difficulty sustaining current self-care efforts indefinitely (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.10–3.66; p =0.023). Digital burden differences were concentrated in annoyance, precautions, and time and effort required to use digital medicine tools, whereas contributors to differences in overall burden varied, with relationships, self-monitoring, and injections contributing most. Conclusions After adjusting for treatment intensity and other factors, women living with diabetes were twice as likely to be overwhelmed by diabetes care than men. Their greater vulnerability to treatment burden demands healthcare service redesign and individualization of plans of care that minimally disrupt patients’ and caregivers’ lives. ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS Why did we undertake this study? Women may experience greater treatment burden across chronic conditions, reflecting competing (caregiving) demands that reduce capacity for self-management. Gender differences in diabetes, especially digital burden, remain unclear. What is the specific question we wanted to answer? Do women with diabetes experience greater overall and digital treatment burden than men? What did we find? Women reported greater overall and digital burden and more difficulty living a normal life and sustaining care than men. Differences were larger for digital annoyance, precautions, and effort, plus relationships, self-monitoring, and injections. What are the implications? Treatment burden cannot be inferred from treatment intensity alone. Diabetes care should consider whether treatment work fits within each patient’s life and can be sustained. Women with diabetes may be particularly vulnerable to becoming overwhelmed by the work of diabetes care.

Introduction To assess the within-class variation in kidney outcomes following initiation of sulfonylurea therapy. Research design and methods We used claims data of enrollees in commercial, Medicare Advantage, and traditional Medicare health plans between 2014 and 2021 to emulate a target trial including adults ≥21 years with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk to compare initiation of glimepiride, glipizide, or glyburide on the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 or worse, including initiation of kidney replacement therapy (primary outcome); secondary outcomes examined incident CKD stages 3-4, kidney failure (including kidney replacement therapy), all-cause mortality, and hypoglycemia requiring emergency department or hospital care. Random treatment assignment was emulated using propensity scores, estimated using the super learner ensemble method, and incorporated as inverse probability of treatment weights into proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort included 295 092 individuals starting glimepiride (n=134 926), glipizide (n=145 984), and glyburide (n=14 182). One year after treatment initiation, stage 3 or worse CKD developed in 2.1% of patients in the glimepiride group, 2.2% in the glipizide group, and 1.8% in the glyburide group. Glyburide was associated with a lower risk of kidney complications compared with both glimepiride (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and glipizide (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.89), despite a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.71 vs glipizide and HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42 vs glimepiride). In contrast, the risk of kidney complications was modestly increased with glipizide compared with glimepiride use (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07). Conclusions Glyburide was associated with a modestly lower risk of kidney complications, despite a higher risk of hypoglycemia, while glipizide was associated with a higher risk of kidney complications. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest important within-class differences that warrant consideration in clinical decision-making and future research. Despite rigorous prespecified causal inference analytic methods, the risk of unmeasured confounding and bias by indication with the use of observational data remains. Trial registration number NCT05214573 .

Background SGLT2 (sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in type 2 diabetes. However, no direct comparison of individual SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has been conducted, particularly among adults with moderate cardiovascular risk who comprise most people with type 2 diabetes. Methods We used data for commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries to emulate a target trial of adults (≥21 years) with type 2 diabetes and moderate cardiovascular risk who started canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin between 2015 and 2020. We estimated propensity scores using the super learner ensemble method and incorporated them as inverse probability of treatment weights into Cox models, estimating risk of MACE, expanded MACE, and hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic crises through December 31, 2022. Results The weighted cohort, balanced on all baseline covariates, included 137 232 patients (mean age 65.7 years [SD, 8.1], 75.3% non‐Hispanic White, 57.0% male, 81.9% on metformin, 11.4% on glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists) starting canagliflozin (N=42 877), dapagliflozin (N=17 871), or empagliflozin (N=7648). The risk of MACE was lower among patients starting empagliflozin versus canagliflozin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]), driven by reduced risk of all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80–0.94]). There was no difference in MACE between empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus canagliflozin therapy. There was no difference in remaining outcomes between the three drugs. Conclusions The 3 most used SGLT2 inhibitor medications demonstrate similar effectiveness on cardiovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk, with differences between these drugs small in magnitude. Clinicians and health systems should prioritize enhancing access to these cardioprotective therapies.

Introduction To examine within-class sulfonylurea safety, we compared risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and moderate cardiovascular risk following sulfonylurea initiation. Research design and methods We conducted a target trial emulation including adults ≥21 years old with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk who initiated glimepiride, glipizide or glyburide between 2014 and 2021, using claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse and the Medicare fee-for-service 100% sample. Study outcomes were MACE (primary), expanded MACE and its components and emergency department or hospital encounters for hypoglycemia, ascertained during follow-up through 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using propensity scores estimated using the super learner ensemble, and outcomes were examined using IPTW Cox proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort comprised 314 699 patients (mean age 66.9 years, 52.0% men, 76.6% non-Hispanic white). At 1 year, MACE was experienced by 2.5%, 2.7% and 2.8% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Compared with glimepiride, glyburide and glipizide were associated with higher risk of MACE (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16 for glyburide; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07 for glipizide). At 1 year, severe hypoglycemia was experienced by 0.3%, 0.3% and 0.4% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Glyburide was associated with a greater risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with glipizide (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), while glipizide was associated with a lower risk compared with glimepiride (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87). Conclusions Among adults with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk, glimepiride was associated with lowest risk of MACE and glipizide with lowest risk of severe hypoglycemia. These results can help inform treatment selection if sulfonylureas are used for glucose-lowering.

Abstract Background The self-management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically requires enacting various lifestyle changes, which can challenge people living with T2D. Clinical encounters between people with T2D and their clinicians, however, are often focused on metabolic management, leaving less time available for other self-management topics. The QBSAFE cards help patients articulate aspects of their experience with diabetes and prioritize issues for discussion. Methods This report details secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial; primary outcomes are reported elsewhere. All data was collected at Fair Haven Community Health Care, a federally qualified primary care clinic. 11 clinicians were randomly assigned to provide either usual care or usual care with QBSAFE cards to 155 of their patients with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c >8%. All patient encounters were video recorded for analysis. Patients and clinicians were not blinded to arm allocation but were kept unaware of the specific aims of the trial. Encounter video reviewers were blinded to arm allocation, but not to specific aims of the trial. The outcomes of interest for this report were the extent to which the QBSAFE cards were used as intended, their effect on the topics of discussion, and whether they enabled clinicians to notice and respond to each patient’s situation; comparisons between arms were conducted by a linear mixed model with fixed effect of arm and cluster effect of clinician, analyzed in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Findings 12 patients were excluded post-randomization (A1c <8%). Of 143 eligible patients, 137 encounters (65 in the usual care arm, 72 in QBSAFE) yielded evaluable videos. QBSAFE was used as intended in 61 (85%) QBSAFE arm encounters. Conversations about burden of treatment related to non-pharmacological interventions (17 vs 33, p = 0·04) and taking medications (11 vs 33, p = 0·0008) and about the patient’s challenging environment (2 vs 10, p = 0·04) were more prevalent in the QBSAFE group. There was no difference in the rate of conversations about metabolic management or of new care plans as a result of conversations between groups. Interpretation While there was a difference in the types of conversations observed between the two study arms, this difference was small and only apparent in a few domains. Future work could aim to modify the QBSAFE cards to more effectively stimulate patient-centered discussions and to further prepare clinicians to respond to a variety of issues raised during the clinical visit. Funding This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK129616).

ABSTRACT Background Effective interventions are needed to support co-creation of diabetes care plans that fit patients’ lives. We evaluated the QBSafe agenda-setting kit (14 conversation cards) for its impact on care fit and glycemic control when added to usual primary care. Methods This single-center, clinician-level cluster-randomized, open-label trial was conducted at a federally qualified health center in New Haven, Connecticut ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553912 ). Clinicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% were randomized 1:1 to usual care with or without QBSafe cards. In the intervention arm, patients selected up to 3 cards highlighting concerns about life with diabetes prior to their visit. Primary outcomes were change at 6 months in care fit (Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, IIRS) and HbA1c, analyzed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ) and diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale, DDS), and satisfaction with visits. Results Between February 2023 and July 2024, 143 participants (mean age 56 years; 61% female; 73% Hispanic; mean HbA1c 10%) were enrolled: 74 received usual care with QBSafe, 69 usual care alone. At 6 months, there were no significant between-arm differences in changes in IIRS (−3.9 [95% CI -10.4, 2.6]), HbA1c (−0.2% [95% CI -0.9, 0.5]), TBQ (1.0 [95% CI -16.6, 18.6]), or DDS (−0.1 [95% CI -0.4, 0.2]). Clinicians reported greater satisfaction when using QBSafe. Patient satisfaction was high and did not differ across arms. Conclusions QBSafe cards improved clinician satisfaction but did not improve care fit or glycemic control. Future tools should focus on helping clinicians respond effectively to patient-identified challenges.

Background Statin Choice is a shared decision-making encounter tool embedded in the electronic health record. Objective To describe the association between the use of Statin Choice, statin prescriptions by clinicians, prescription fills (primary adherence), and statin adherence at 12 mo (secondary adherence). Design Observational cohort study at the Cleveland Clinic Health System. Subjects Statin-naïve adults aged 40 to 75 y with a 10-y atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk of ≥5% and a primary care appointment between January 2020 and July 2021. Main Measures The primary exposure was the use of Statin Choice during a clinical encounter. We measured whether the use of Statin Choice was associated with statin prescriptions. We measured statin adherence based on pharmacy fill data at 60 d (primary adherence) and 12 mo (secondary adherence). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of statin prescriptions and adherence at the 3 time points by the use of Statin Choice. Key Results Among 17,001 statin-naïve patients, 13% viewed Statin Choice and 7% were prescribed a statin. The median ASCVD risk was 10%. Patients who were shown Statin Choice had 9.04 higher odds of being prescribed a statin compared with patients not shown Statin Choice (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.86–10.4). Among patients prescribed a statin, the use of Statin Choice was associated with 5.75 higher odds of primary adherence compared with usual care (95% CI: 4.22–7.83). At 12 mo, Statin Choice use was significantly associated with adherence in the unadjusted analysis (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.05–2.08) but was not significant after adjustment for patient factors. Patients shown Statin Choice had an average of 12 mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 mo (95% CI: −16 mg/dL, −10) compared with those not shown Statin Choice. Conclusion In this observational study, Statin Choice use was strongly associated with statin prescription and fills and weakly associated with adherence to statins for up to 1 y. A randomized trial is needed to confirm causality. Highlights Statin Choice is an electronic health record–embedded shared decision-making encounter tool available for free in many health care systems. Small randomized controlled trials have found modest associations between the use of Statin Choice and statin adherence using patient-reported data. In our large study using pharmacy fill data, clinician use of Statin Choice during a medical encounter was associated with significantly greater patient adherence with statins up to 1 y later. Exposure to Statin Choice was associated with a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol over 1 y.