OBJECTIVETo estimate the health utility scores associated with type 2 diabetes, its treatments, complications, and comorbidities.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe analyzed health-related quality-of-life data, collected at baseline during Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes, a multicenter, prospective, observational study of diabetes care in managed care, for 7,327 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We measured quality-of-life using the EuroQol (EQ)-5D, a standardized instrument for which 1.00 indicates perfect health. We used multivariable regression to estimate the independent impact of demographic characteristics, diabetes treatments, complications, and comorbidities on health-related quality-of-life.RESULTSThe mean EQ-5D–derived health utility score for those individuals with diabetes was 0.80. The modeled utility score for a nonobese, non–insulin-treated, non-Asian, non-Hispanic man with type 2 diabetes, with an annual household income of more than $40,000, and with no diabetes complications, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, or comorbidities, was 0.92. Being a woman, being obese, smoking, and having a lower household income were associated with lower utility scores. Arranging complications from least to most severe according to the reduction in health utility scores resulted in the following order: peripheral vascular disease, other heart diseases, transient ischemic attack, cerebral vascular accident, nonpainful diabetic neuropathy, congestive heart failure, dialysis, hemiplegia, painful neuropathy, and amputation.CONCLUSIONSMajor diabetes complications and comorbidities are associated with decreased health-related quality-of-life. Utility estimates from our study can be used to assess the impact of diabetes on quality-of-life and conduct cost-utility analyses.

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to examine the predictors of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; its impact on A1C, body weight, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and health status; and patient characteristics associated with improvement in A1C.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe analyzed survey, medical record, and health plan administrative data collected in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). We examined patients who were using diet/exercise or oral antihyperglycemic medications at baseline, had A1C >7.2%, and stayed with the same therapy or intensified therapy (initiated or increased the number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic medications or began insulin) over 18 months.RESULTSOf 1,093 patients, 520 intensified therapy with oral medications or insulin. Patients intensifying therapy were aged 58 ± 12 years, had diabetes duration of 11 ± 9 years, and had A1C of 9.1 ± 1.5%. Younger age and higher A1C were associated with therapy intensification. Compared with patients who did not intensify therapy, those who intensified therapy experienced a 0.49% reduction in A1C (P < 0.0001), a 3-pound increase in weight (P = 0.003), and no change in anxiety/depression (P = 0.5) or health status (P = 0.2). Among those who intensified therapy, improvement in A1C was associated with higher baseline A1C, older age, black race/ethnicity, lower income, and more physician visits.CONCLUSIONSTreatment intensification improved glycemic control with no worsening of anxiety/depression or health status, especially in elderly, lower-income, and minority patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions are needed to overcome clinical inertia when patients might benefit from treatment intensification and improved glycemic control.

Our purpose was to assess the cost, quality of life impact, and the cost-utility of bariatric surgery in a managed care population. We studied 221 patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2001 and 2005. We analyzed medical claims data for all patients and survey data for 122 survey respondents (55% response rate). Patients were generally middle-aged, female, and white. Sixty-four percent underwent open and 33% underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y procedures. One year after surgery, mean body mass index fell from 51 to 31 kg/m(2) in women and from 59 to 35 kg/m(2) in men with substantial improvements in comorbidities. Postsurgical mortality and morbidity were low. Total per member per month costs increased in the 6 months before bariatric surgery, were lower in the 12 months after bariatric surgery, but increased somewhat over the next 12 months. When presurgical quality of life was assessed prospectively, average health utility scores improved by 0.14 one year after surgery. In analyses that took a lifetime time horizon, projected future costs based on age and obesity and discounted costs and health utilities at 3% per year, the cost-utility ratio for bariatric surgery versus no surgery was approximately $1,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In sensitivity analyses, bariatric surgery was more cost-effective in women, non-whites, more obese patients, and when performed laparoscopically. Although not cost-saving, bariatric surgery represents a very good value for money. Its long-term cost effectiveness appears to depend on the natural history and cost of late postsurgical complications and the natural history and cost of untreated morbid obesity.

Postmenopausal women taking TZDs and the subset of men taking both loop diuretics and TZDs were at increased risk for fractures. In postmenopausal women, risk was associated with higher TZD dose. No difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone was apparent.

Summary Background Research on self-care for chronic disease has not examined time requirements. TRIAD, a multi-site study of managed care patients with diabetes, is among the first to assess self-care time. Objective To examine associations between socioeconomic position and extra time patients spend on foot care, shopping/cooking, and exercise due to diabetes. Data 11,927 patient surveys from 2000–01. Methods Bayesian two-part models were used to estimate associations of self-reported extra time spent on self-care with race/ethnicity, education, and income, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results Proportions of patients spending no extra time on foot care, shopping/cooking and exercise were respectively 37%, 52% and 31%. Extra time spent on foot care and shopping/cooking was greater among racial/ethnic minorities, less-educated and lower-income patients. For example, African-Americans were about 10 percentage points more likely to report spending extra time on foot care than whites and extra time spent was about three more minutes/day. Discussion Extra time spent on self-care was greater for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients than for advantaged patients, perhaps because their perceived opportunity cost of time is lower or they cannot afford substitutes. Our findings suggest that poorly controlled diabetes risk factors among disadvantaged populations may not be attributable to self-care practices.

Background Studies have associated thiazolidinedione (TZD) treatment with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and questioned whether the two available TZDs, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, have different CVD risks. We compared CVD incidence, cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone as their only TZD. Methods We analyzed survey, medical record, administrative, and National Death Index (NDI) data from 1999 through 2003 from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. Medications, CV procedures, and CVD were determined from health plan (HP) administrative data, and mortality was from NDI. Adjusted hazard rates (AHR) were derived from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, history of diabetic nephropathy, history of CVD, insulin use, and HP. Results Across TRIAD’s ten HPs, 1,815 patients (24%) filled prescriptions for a TZD, 773 (10%) for only rosiglitazone, 711 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 331 (4%) for multiple TZDs. In the seven HPs using both TZDs, 1,159 patients (33%) filled a prescription for a TZD, 564 (16%) for only rosiglitazone, 334 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 261 (7%) for multiple TZDs. For all CV events, CV and all-cause mortality, we found no significant difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. Conclusions In this relatively small, prospective, observational study, we found no statistically significant differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- compared to pioglitazone-treated patients. There does not appear to be a pattern of clinically meaningful differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- versus pioglitazone-treated patients.

BACKGROUNDPatients who speak Spanish and/or have low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of suboptimal glycemic control. Inadequate intensification of anti-glycemic medications may partially explain this disparity.OBJECTIVETo examine the associations between primary language, income, and medication intensification.DESIGNCohort study with 18-month follow-up.PARTICIPANTSOne thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine patients with Type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin enrolled in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes Study (TRIAD), a study of diabetes care in managed care.MEASUREMENTSUsing administrative pharmacy data, we compared the odds of medication intensification for patients with baseline A1c ≥ 8%, by primary language and annual income. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, Charlson score, diabetes duration, baseline A1c, type of diabetes treatment, and health plan.RESULTSOverall, 42.4% of patients were taking intensified regimens at the time of follow-up. We found no difference in the odds of intensification for English speakers versus Spanish speakers. However, compared to patients with incomes <$15,000, patients with incomes of $15,000-$39,999 (OR 1.43, 1.07-1.92), $40,000-$74,999 (OR 1.62, 1.16-2.26) or >$75,000 (OR 2.22, 1.53-3.24) had increased odds of intensification. This latter pattern did not differ statistically by race.CONCLUSIONSLow-income patients were less likely to receive medication intensification compared to higher-income patients, but primary language (Spanish vs. English) was not associated with differences in intensification in a managed care setting. Future studies are needed to explain the reduced rate of intensification among low income patients in managed care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1588-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.