BACKGROUND: Many individuals with diabetes live in low-or middle-income settings. Glycemic control is challenging, particularly in resource-limited areas that face numerous healthcare barriers. OBJECTIVE: To compare HbA1c outcomes for individuals randomized to TIME, a Telehealth-supported, Integrated care with CHWs (Community Health Workers), and MEdication-access program (intervention) versus usual care (wait-list control). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Low-income Latino(a) adults with type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: TIME consisted of (1) CHW-participant telehealth communication via mobile health (mHealth) for 12 months, (2) CHW-led monthly group visits for 6 months, and (3) weekly CHW-physician diabetes training and support via telehealth (video conferencing). MAIN MEASURES: Investigators compared TIME versus control participant baseline to month 6 changes of HbA1c (primary outcome), blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), weight, and adherence to seven American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care. CHW assistance in identifying barriers to healthcare in the intervention group were measured at the end of mHealth communication (12 months). KEY RESULTS: A total of 89 individuals participated. TIME individuals compared to control participants had significant HbA1c decreases (9.02 to 7.59% (− 1.43%) vs. 8.71 to 8.26% (− 0.45%), respectively, p = 0.002), blood pressure changes (systolic: − 6.89 mmHg vs. 0.03 mmHg, p = 0.023; diastolic: − 3.36 mmHg vs. 0.2 mmHg, respectively, p = 0.046), and ADA guideline adherence (p < 0.001) from baseline to month 6. At month 6, more TIME than control participants achieved > 0.50% HbA1c reductions (88.57% vs. 43.75%, p < 0.001). BMI and weight changes were not significant between groups. Many (54.6%) TIME participants experienced > 1 barrier to care, of whom 91.7% had medication issues. CHWs identified the majority (87.5%) of barriers. CONCLUSIONS: TIME participants resulted in improved outcomes including HbA1c. CHWs are uniquely positioned to identify barriers to care particularly related to medications that may have gone unrecognized otherwise. Larger trials are needed to determine the scalability and sustainability of the intervention.

This randomized clinical trial compares the effectiveness of telephone-delivered collaborative goal setting and behavioral activation vs enhanced usual care for depression symptoms among US veterans with uncontrolled diabetes.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is commonly performed, and several factors increase the

Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of integrating Community Health Workers (CHWs) as part of the team leading diabetes group visits. Methods This was a randomized controlled study that integrated CHWs as part of the team leading diabetes group visits for low-income Hispanic adults (n = 50). Group visits met for 3 hours each month for a 6-month duration. Main measures included baseline and 6-month clinical outcomes (ie, A1C, lipids), concordance with 8 standard of care guidelines (ie, screens for cervical, breast, and colon cancer) from the US Preventive Task Force and American Diabetes Association, and participant acceptability. Results Compared to control participants, the intervention group resulted in significantly better clinical outcomes or guideline concordance for the following areas: target A1C levels, retinal eye exams, diabetes foot exams, mammograms, and urine microalbumin. Significantly more individuals in the control group gained weight, whereas a greater number of participants in the intervention group lost weight. Intervention participants found the group visits highly acceptable. Conclusions Integrating CHWs as part a comprehensive diabetes group visit program is a feasible and effective system-level intervention to improve glycemic control and achieve guideline concordance.

Readmissions and complications following cholecystectomy are common and associated with patient and disease characteristics.

Background: Community health workers (CHWs) are a wellestablished source to improve patient health care, yet their training and support remain suboptimal. This limits program expansion and potentially compromises patient safety. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of weekly training and support by telemedicine (videoconferencing). Materials and Methods: CHWs (n = 6) who led diabetes group visits for low-income Latinos met weekly with a health care professional for training and support. Feasibility and acceptability outcome measures included telemedicine usability, knowledge of diabetes (baseline to 6 months), and program satisfaction. Results: Telemedicine training and support were found to be feasible and acceptable as measured by usability (Telehealth Usability Questionnaire: average 4.7/5.0, -0.4), knowledge (Diabetes Knowledge Test: pretest 15.8 -1.3, posttest 21.8 -1.2, p < 0.001, respectively), and satisfaction (Texas Department of State Health Services survey: average 5.8/6.0, -0.5). All CHWs preferred telemedicine to in-person training. Conclusions: Telemedicine is a feasible and acceptable modality to train and support CHWs.

OBJECTIVE There is mounting evidence regarding the cardiovascular benefits of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is paucity of data assessing real-world practice patterns for these drug classes. We aimed to assess utilization rates of these drug classes and facility-level variation in their use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used the nationwide Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system data set from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 and included patients with established ASCVD and T2DM. Among these patients, we assessed the use of SGLT2-I and GLP-1 RA and the facility-level variation in their use. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios (MRR), a measure of likelihood that two random facilities differ in use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in patients with ASCVD and T2DM. RESULTS Among 537,980 patients with ASCVD and T2DM across 130 VA facilities, 11.2% of patients received an SGLT2i while 8.0% of patients received a GLP-1 RA. Patients receiving these cardioprotective glucose-lowering drug classes were on average younger and had a higher proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, median (10th–90th percentile) facility-level rates were 14.92% (9.31–22.50) for SGLT2i and 10.88% (4.44–17.07) for GLP-1 RA. There was significant facility-level variation among SGLT2-Is use—MRRunadjusted: 1.41 (95% CI 1.35–1.47) and MRRadjusted: 1.55 (95% CI 1.46 –1.63). Similar facility-level variation was observed for use of GLP-1 RA—MRRunadjusted: 1.34 (95% CI 1.29–1.38) and MRRadjusted: 1.78 (95% CI1.65–1.90). CONCLUSIONS Overall utilization rates of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA among eligible patients are low, with significantly higher residual facility-level variation in the use of these drug classes. Our results suggest opportunities to optimize their use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events among these patients.

No abstract