COVID-19 Impact Predicts Diabetes Distress Among Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether COVID-19 impact and Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) service attendance predicted diabetes distress among individuals with type 2 diabetes during the pandemic. METHODS: Eighty-six adults with type 2 diabetes who either attended (n = 29) or did not previously attend (n = 57) DSMES services completed a cross-sectional survey. Participants' mean age was 57 ± 12.3 years, 50% were female, and 71.3% were diagnosed with diabetes >5 years. The Coronavirus Impact Scale was used to measure impact of the pandemic on daily life. The Diabetes Distress Scale was used to measure distress overall and within 4 subscales (emotional burden, interpersonal distress, physician-related distress, regimen distress). Separate multiple linear regressions were conducted for each outcome, controlling for age, sex, marital status, financial status, and time since diabetes diagnosis. RESULTS: Higher COVID-19 impact predicted higher diabetes-related distress for all subscales and overall. Only the subscale for interpersonal distress was predicted by DSMES attendance, which decreased with DSMES attendance. CONCLUSION: This study identifies a link between the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and diabetes distress. The findings highlight the negative impact of the pandemic on diabetes distress and the importance of DSMES services for diabetes-related distress. Interventions are needed to reduce psychological distress among this population during public health crises.

A New Look at Barriers to Clinical Care Among Appalachian Residents Living With Diabetes.

In the United States, diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death and continues to rise in prevalence, with type 2 diabetes accounting for 90-95% of all cases. Rates of diabetes in Kentucky, and, in particular, the Appalachian region, are among the highest in the nation and are increasing faster than the national average. Despite this disproportionate burden, barriers to clinical appointment attendance have not been fully explored in this population. This article examines the association among perceived barriers to clinical attendance, glycemic control, and diabetes self-care as part of an ongoing study. We used a 25-item checklist developed using the Chronic Care Model to assess participants' barriers to clinic attendance. Glycemic control was assessed via A1C measurement. Diabetes self-care was assessed using the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities measure. At the time of analysis, 123 of the 356 participants (34.6%) did not report any barriers to clinic attendance. For the remainder, the major reported barriers included forgetting appointments, inability to afford medicines or other treatment, and placing faith above medical care. The average A1C was 7.7%, and the average diabetes self-care summary score was 17.1 out of 35 points (with higher values indicating better self-care). Missing clinic appointments is associated with lower health outcomes, especially in vulnerable populations. This study can help educate clinic staff on perceived barriers to type 2 diabetes management among people with diabetes in Appalachia.

Primary Care Cluster RCT to Increase Diabetes Prevention Program Referrals.

INTRODUCTION: The Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle change program, effectively reduces the risk of progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes but is underutilized. An implementation study using formative research was undertaken to increase Diabetes Prevention Program referrals at a primary care clinic. STUDY DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster randomized, mixed-methods study. SETTING/PARTICPANTS: Clusters were teams of primary care clinicians from 2 primary care clinics. The 3 intervention clusters had 8-11 clinicians, and the 3 control clusters had 7-20 clinicians. INTERVENTION: Implementation activities occurred from December 2017 to February 2019. The activities included targeted clinician education, a prediabetes clinician champion, and a custom electronic health record report identifying patients with prediabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was referral of patients with prediabetes to the institutional Diabetes Prevention Program. Study data, including patient demographic and clinical variables, came from electronic health record. Interviews with clinicians evaluated the implementation strategies. Generalized estimating equation analyses that accounted for multiple levels of correlation and interview content analysis occurred in 2019. RESULTS: Study clinicians cared for 2,992 patients with a prediabetes diagnosis or HbA1c indicative of prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%). Clinicians in the intervention clusters referred 6.9% (87 of 1,262) of patients with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program and those in the control clusters referred 1.5% (26 of 1,730). When adjusted for patient age, sex, race, HbA1c value, HbA1c test location, and insurance type, intervention clinicians had 3.85 (95% CI=0.40, 36.78) greater odds of referring a patient with prediabetes to the Diabetes Prevention Program. The 11 interviewed intervention clinicians had mixed opinions about the utility of the interventions, reporting the prediabetes clinic champion (n=7, 64%) and educational presentations (n=6, 55%) as most helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention clinicians were more likely to make Diabetes Prevention Program referrals; however, the study lacked power to achieve statistical significance. Clinician interviews suggested that intervention components that triggered Diabetes Prevention Program referrals varied among clinicians.

Prediabetes Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices at an Academic Family Medicine Practice.

PURPOSE: Lifestyle change programs are an effective but underutilized approach to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes. Understanding clinician prediabetes knowledge, attitudes, and practices can inform implementation efforts to increase lifestyle change program referrals. METHODS: We surveyed clinicians at an academic family medicine clinic about their prediabetes knowledge, attitudes, and practices. From the same clinic, we reviewed electronic health records to assess prediabetes screening, diagnosis, and treatment coverage in the cohort of adults seen from 2015 to 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-one clinicians (69.6%) completed the survey. Clinicians believed prediabetes was an important health issue (n = 29; 93.7%) and that prediabetes screening (n = 20, 64.5%) and diagnosis (n = 31, 100%) were important for prediabetes management. About half of the respondents (n = 14; 45.2%) reported familiarity with the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Electronic chart review included 15,520 adult patients. Most of the 5360 nondiabetic patients meeting US Preventive Services Task Force diabetes screening guidelines (n = 4068; 75.9%) received a hemoglobin A1c test. Of the 1437 patients with an A1c result diagnostic of prediabetes, 729 (50.7%) had the diagnosis in their chart. Prediabetes patients receiving point-of-care A1c testing instead of laboratory testing had 4.7 increased odds (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4) of metformin prescription. No patients were referred to a DPP. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' positive attitudes toward prediabetes screening, moderate knowledge of prediabetes management, and low awareness of DPPs were reflected by high diabetes screening coverage, limited prediabetes diagnosis, and no DPP referrals. We will tailor our implementation strategy to overcome these prediabetes care barriers.

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Prediabetes: A Mixed-Methods Primary Care Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess patient and clinician perceptions of prediabetes in an academic family medicine practice. Data were collected in preparation for an implementation study to increase utilization of the National Diabetes Prevention Program (N-DPP). METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, discussions from 3 focus groups composed of patients with prediabetes were evaluated using thematic analysis for their understanding of and beliefs about prediabetes, care experiences, and attitudes toward N-DPP. Clinicians completed a Likert-scaled survey assessing attitudes and perceived barriers to providing prediabetes care. RESULTS: Among the 15 focus group participants, more than half were not aware of their diagnosis. Attitudes toward prediabetes were mixed: while many believed it was serious and elicited more fear than being "at risk," others thought there were varying degrees of risk within the same diagnosis, making the diagnosis less impactful. Patients repeatedly expressed the perception that clinicians were not forthcoming about necessary behavior changes. Patients agreed on barriers to N-DPP, including scheduling and transportation. Clinicians (N = 31) concurred that patients lack awareness of their prediabetes diagnosis. They reported that time is available to screen all patients and that a prediabetes diagnosis is effective for advising patients of the need for lifestyle modification. There was consensus from both patients and clinicians that prediabetes is curable. CONCLUSIONS: Increased patient awareness and patient-centered education is needed to overcome barriers to prediabetes care. To facilitate implementation of N-DPP referral processes, clinicians should clearly communicate risk, treatment information, and linkage to N-DPP as the suggested treatment plan.

Linking Postpartum and Parenting Women With a National Diabetes Prevention Program: Recruitment Efforts, Challenges, and Recommendations.

IN BRIEF Women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at higher risk for type 2 diabetes. This project piloted the National Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle change program in cohorts of women with a history of GDM. The article describes recruitment efforts, challenges, and study participation and provides recommendations for future program implementation.

SENSING THE BIG PICTURE WITH CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING.

When you have diabetes, monitoring your blood glucose is a crucial part of your treatment plan. Knowing your blood glucose values can help you avoid short-term problems such as hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). Ongoing optimal blood glucose control can help you prevent or delay long-term diabetes complications such as diabetes-related eye disease, kidney disease and nerve damage.

Role of Amylin in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: The pathophysiology of diabetes has historically focused on alterations in insulin secretion and function; however, diabetes involves multiple hormonal alterations, including abnormal regulation of amylin. This review discusses the physiologic functions of amylin in glucose homeostasis and the rationale for amylin replacement in type 1 and 2 diabetes. The use of pramlintide, a synthetic amylin analog, is also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Amylin, formed primarily in pancreatic islet ß cells, is cosecreted with insulin in response to caloric intake. Patients with type 1 diabetes have lower baseline amylin serum concentrations, and amylin response to caloric intake is absent. Patients with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin also have a diminished amylin response to caloric intake, potentially related to the degree of ß-cell impairment. Key physiologic functions of amylin in maintaining glucose homeostasis include suppressing glucagon release in response to caloric intake, delaying the rate of gastric emptying, and stimulating the satiety center in the brain to limit caloric intake. Pramlintide is indicated for adults with type 1 and 2 diabetes who have not achieved adequate glucose control despite optimal insulin therapy. As an adjunct to insulin therapy, pramlintide demonstrated significant reductions in A1C in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, with favorable effects on body weight. It is administered subcutaneously before each major meal. There is an increased risk of hypoglycemia with insulin when used in combination with pramlintide. Other adverse effects may include nausea, vomiting, anorexia, reduced appetite, and headache. Proper patient selection and education are essential to successful pramlintide use.