McCoy, Rozalina Grubina

OBJECTIVE Severe (level 3) hypoglycemia is a life-threatening complication of diabetes associated with substantial risk of recurrence and long-term morbidity. This study examined how adults with diabetes interpreted severe hypoglycemic events and why they declined participation in a community paramedicine program (Diabetes Rescue, Engagement, and Management [Diabetes-REM]) designed to prevent recurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who experienced severe hypoglycemia requiring emergency medical services and declined enrollment in Diabetes-REM. Interviews explored hypoglycemia management experiences and reasons for nonparticipation and were explored using thematic analysis. RESULTS Sixteen adults (44% female; mean age 60 years, range 25–83) participated. Four interrelated themes emerged. First, participants normalized glucose variability as a baseline condition of diabetes and interpreted severe events as situational and correctable when a cause was identifiable, or as inevitable when it was not, rather than as evidence of increased risk. Second, participants relied on prevention systems encompassing habitual routines, caregiver involvement, and glucose-monitoring technologies. Third, severe episodes were frightening and disruptive but typically prompted adjustments to personal management over pursuit of additional clinical support. Finally, reasons for declining Diabetes-REM included time constraints (56%), perceived lack of benefit (25%), and privacy concerns or discomfort with home visits (25%). CONCLUSIONS Among adults who declined a community paramedicine hypoglycemia prevention intervention, severe events were absorbed into existing self-management frameworks rather than viewed as signals of increased risk. Programs targeting hypoglycemia recurrence should account for patients’ risk perceptions and existing management systems, positioning support as complementary rather than corrective.

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.

Abstract Context Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are widely prescribed for type 2 diabetes and obesity and can lead to substantial weight loss. In patients taking levothyroxine, weight loss can reduce thyroid hormone requirements and potentially associated adverse effects. Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) monitoring is essential but unclear whether thyroid function is routinely reassessed after GLP-1 RAs initiation. Objective Examine the changes in the timing of TSH testing after GLP-1 RAs. Design Retrospective cohort study emulating a target trial using Medicare from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020. The primary analysis followed an intention-to-treat approach. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. Logistic regression models and informed by least absolute shrinkage operator variable selection were used. Setting The 15% sample of U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data. Patients or Other Participants Adults aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes on a stable levothyroxine dose at baseline. Intervention(s) Initiation of GLP-1 RAs vs initiation/ongoing use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is). Main Outcome Measure(s) TSH testing during follow-up. Results Among 5370 matched patients, the mean age was 73.2 years. 71.6% were women, and 87.1% were White. Approximately 83.0% of patients in both treatment groups receive a TSH testing within a 1-year follow-up. The mean time to TSH testing was approximately 130.5 days for both groups. Conclusion TSH testing patterns did not differ between GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2is, despite the greater likelihood of requiring levothyroxine dose adjustment associated with weight loss seen with GLP-1 RA therapy. Given levothyroxine's widespread use, this gap suggests missed opportunities for timely and weight-responsive thyroid monitoring.

Abstract Context Osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis should be followed by antiresorptive treatment (“consolidation”) to preserve bone mass. Although osteoanabolic therapy is increasingly endorsed for primary fracture prevention, real-world implementation of consolidation remains unknown. Objective To assess patterns and predictors of timely consolidation after osteoanabolic therapy for primary fracture prevention. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using US commercial, Medicare Advantage, and traditional Medicare claims data. Adults aged ≥50 years who initiated romosozumab, teriparatide, or abaloparatide between 2011 and 2022 were included. The primary outcome was timely consolidation, defined as initiation of an antiresorptive medication within 3 months after osteoanabolic therapy. Secondary outcomes included delayed consolidation (initiation >3 months after completion), osteoanabolic restart following a treatment gap, and no consolidation therapy. We further distinguished participants who completed the full osteoanabolic course, defined as ≥12 months for romosozumab and ≥18 months for teriparatide or abaloparatide. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of consolidation patterns. Results Among 15 389 patients (mean age 70.6 years; 89% women; 85% White), 30% completed osteoanabolic therapy (median, 12.9 months for romosozumab; 23.4 months for teriparatide/abaloparatide). Overall, 25% had timely consolidation, 24% delayed consolidation, 12% restarted osteoanabolics, and 40% had no consolidation; only 12% completed therapy with timely consolidation. Timely consolidation was more likely with endocrinology (OR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.48) or rheumatology (OR 1.45; 1.30-1.62) vs primary care, and less likely among patients aged 50-64 years (OR 0.67; 0.58-0.77) vs 65-74, those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (OR 0.85; 0.74-0.98) vs traditional Medicare, or those recently hospitalized (OR 0.88; 0.80-0.97). Odds increased over time (OR 4.27; 3.63-5.05 for 2021 vs 2011 starts). Conclusion Only 1 in 4 patients received timely consolidation therapy after osteoanabolic treatment, and 1 in 8 completed the full sequence. Strategies to improve consolidation in primary fracture prevention are needed.

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.

Optimal management of hyperglycemia during illness has been hindered by a lack of comprehensive sick-day guidance, particularly for adults with diabetes. Managing glycemia can be challenging during illness because of adaptive counterregulatory hormonal changes, acute stress of illness, altered dietary intake, and effects of medications. People with diabetes may be at risk for severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic crisis during illness unless mitigated by close monitoring and medication adjustment. This article provides practical guidance to health care professionals and people with diabetes for safe glycemic management during illness, including considerations for insulin and noninsulin medications, use of insulin technologies, prevention of hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis, steroid use, and pregnancy.