No abstract

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of obesity and its related comorbidities among patients being actively managed at a US academic medical centre, and to examine the frequency of a formal diagnosis of obesity, via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) documentation among patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2.DesignThe electronic health record system at Cleveland Clinic was used to create a cross-sectional summary of actively managed patients meeting minimum primary care physician visit frequency requirements. Eligible patients were stratified by BMI categories, based on most recent weight and median of all recorded heights obtained on or before the index date of 1July 2015. Relationships between patient characteristics and BMI categories were tested.SettingA large US integrated health system.ResultsA total of 324 199 active patients with a recorded BMI were identified. There were 121 287 (37.4%) patients found to be overweight (BMI ≥25 and <29.9), 75 199 (23.2%) had BMI 30–34.9, 34 152 (10.5%) had BMI 35–39.9 and 25 137 (7.8%) had BMI ≥40. There was a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease (P value<0.0001) within higher BMI compared with lower BMI categories. In patients with a BMI >30 (n=134 488), only 48% (64 056) had documentation of an obesity ICD-9 code. In those patients with a BMI >40, only 75% had an obesity ICD-9 code.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional summary from a large US integrated health system found that three out of every four patients had overweight or obesity based on BMI. Patients within higher BMI categories had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. Less than half of patients who were identified as having obesity according to BMI received a formal diagnosis via ICD-9 documentation. The disease of obesity is very prevalent yet underdiagnosed in our clinics. The under diagnosing of obesity may serve as an important barrier to treatment initiation.

PurposeTo compare the prevalence of diabetes-related complications and comorbidities, clinical characteristics, glycemic control, and treatment patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) within a large integrated healthcare system in 2008 vs 2013.MethodsAn electronic health record system was used to create a cross-sectional summary of all patients with T2D as on 1 July 2008 and 1 July 2013. Differences between the two data sets were assessed after adjusting for age, gender, race, and household income.ResultsIn 2008 and 2013, 24 493 and 41 582 patients with T2D were identified, respectively, of which the majority were male (52.3% and 50.1%) and Caucasian (79% and 75.2%). The mean ages (years) were 64.8 and 64.3. The percentages of patients across the defined A1C categories were 64.3 and 66.7 for <7%, 21.1 and 18.8 for 7–7.9%, 7.8 and 7.5 for 8–8.9%, and 6.8 and 7.0 for ≥9% in 2008 and 2013, respectively. The most prevalent T2D-related comorbidities were hypertension (82.5% and 87.2%) and cardiovascular disease (26.9% and 22.3%) in 2008 and 2013, respectively. Thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea use decreased, whereas metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use increased in the 5-year period.ConclusionsPatients with T2D are characterized by a high number of comorbidities. Over 85% of the patients had an A1C<8% within our integrated health delivery system in 2008 and 2013. In 2008 and 2013, metformin therapy was the most commonly utilized antidiabetic agent, and sulfonylureas were the most commonly utilized oral antidiabetic agent in combination with metformin. As integrated health systems assume greater shared financial risk in newer payment models, achieving glycemic targets (A1C) and the management of comorbidities will become ever-more important, for preventing diabetes-related complications, as well as to ensure reimbursement for the medical care that is rendered to patients with diabetes.

Oral anti-diabetic agents have been associated with adverse cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes (DM2). We investigated the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and mortality using multivariable Cox models in a retrospective cohort of 20,450 DM2 patients from our electronic health record (EHR). We observed no differences in CAD risk among the agents. Metformin was associated with a reduced risk of CHF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91) and mortality (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) when compared to sulfonylurea. Pioglitazone was also associated with a lower risk of mortality when compared to sulfonylurea (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81). No other significant differences were found between the oral agents. In conclusions, our results did not identify an increased CAD risk with rosiglitazone in clinical practice. However, the results do reinforce a possible increased risk of adverse events in DM2 patients prescribed sulfonylureas.

Aims To systematically investigate the effect of interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials or quasi‐experimental studies published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 evaluating the effect of interventions on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control. Characteristics of included studies and HbA1c difference between intervention and control arms (main outcome) were extracted. Interventions were grouped as: care management and patient education; nurse or certified diabetes educator (CDE); pharmacist; or physician‐based. Results Thirty‐six studies including 22 243 individuals were combined in nonlinear random‐effects meta‐regressions; the median (range) duration of intervention was 1 year (0.9 to 36 months). Compared to the control arm, HbA1c reduction ranged from: −17.7 mmol/mol (−1.62%) to −4.4 mmol/mol (−0.40%) for nurse‐ or CDE‐based interventions; −13.1 mmol/mol (−1.20%) to 3.3 mmol/mol (0.30%) for care management and patient education interventions; −9.8 mmol/mol (−0.90%) to −6.6 mmol/mol (−0.60%) for pharmacist‐based interventions; and −4.4 mmol/mol (−0.40%) to 2.8 mmol/mol (0.26%) for physician‐based interventions. Across the included studies, a reduction in HbA1c was observed only during the first year (6 months: −4.2 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] −6.2, −2.2 [−0.38%, 95% CI −0.56, −0.20]; 1 year: −1.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI −3.3, 0.1 [−0.15%, 95% CI −0.30, 0.01]) and in individuals with preintervention HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%). Conclusions The most effective approaches to mitigating therapeutic inertia and improving HbA1c were those that empower nonphysician providers such as pharmacists, nurses and diabetes educators to initiate and intensify treatment independently, supported by appropriate guidelines.