ABSTRACT
Background: Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits. Methods: This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines. Findings: There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted. Interpretation: PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention. Funding: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of interventions for diabetes prevention have focused on lifestyle interventions, including the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and translations of the DPP. However, nationally, few people with prediabetes have joined or completed a DPP, with one cited barrier being committing to a yearlong program. This study was a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for prediabetes on weight change, glycemia, and health behaviors. METHODS: English-language studies from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2000 to February 23, 2022 were searched for RCTs of nonpregnant adults with prediabetes and elevated BMI and lower-intensity interventions (defined as ≤12 months and <14 sessions over 6 months). Two reviewers independently identified 11 trials, assessed study quality (using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool), and extracted data serially. A qualitative synthesis was conducted by outcome. RESULTS: Only 1 of 11 trials of lower-intensity interventions was of high quality (>80% follow-up rate and low risk of bias). This 6-month study compared an app with standardized dietary advice, showing a 3-kg greater body weight reduction and 0.2% greater reduction of HbA1c. DISCUSSION: The evidence on lower-intensity lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention is limited by the small number and methodologic weaknesses of previous trials, and future research is needed in this area. Given the low uptake of and retention in evidence-based high-intensity programs, future work is needed to investigate the effectiveness of novel lower-intensity interventions offered with established DPP content of varying duration and intensity.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.
