Do ethnic disparities extend to subspecialty diabetes care?

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear if disparities described in diabetes primary care extend to subspecialty diabetes care. This retrospective observational study examined disparities in diabetes outcomes in a subspecialty practice by assessing glycemic improvement in type 2 diabetes patients during the first year of enrollment. METHODS: Electronic data were gathered on 3,945 subjects. The outcome was the proportion of white and minority (Asian, black, and Hispanic) subjects achieving a hemoglobin A1C (A1C) level of ≤7% after the first year of care. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with odds of achieving A1C ≤7%. RESULTS: Minority patients had greater diabetes duration, more social disadvantages and missed appointments, and worse control at presentation than whites. The proportion of patients reaching target A1C rose from 37 to 52% among white patients and from 28 to 40% among minority patients. Significant differences between whites and minorities in the rates of patients reaching A1C ≤7% were found only among those with higher initial A1C (iA1C) levels (32% vs. 20.9%; P = .002 in third iA1C quartile, and 28.2% vs. 17.9%; P = .0003 in fourth iA1C quartile). The interaction between race/ethnicity and the top two iA1C quartiles remained significant in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION: Reaching an A1C level of ≤7% depends strongly upon the glycemic level at initial presentation to specialty care, not race. However, minority patients with the highest baseline A1C levels do not improve to the same degree as white patients, and therefore should be targeted for more intensive diabetes care management.

A cross-sectional characterization of insulin resistance by phenotype and insulin clamp in East Asian Americans with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Classic features of type 1 and type 2 diabetes may not apply in Asian Americans, due to shared absence of common HLA DR-DQ genotype, low prevalence of positive anti-islet antibodies and low BMI in both types of diabetes. Our objective was to characterize diabetic phenotypes in Asian Americans by clamp and clinical features. MATERIALS/METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a referral center. Thirty East young Asian American adult volunteers (27.6±5.5 years) with type 1, type 2 diabetes or controls underwent hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp to assess insulin resistance and DEXA to assess adiposity. RESULTS: Gender, BMI, waist/hip ratio, leptin, LDL, anti-GAD, anti-IA2 antibodies and C-reactive protein were similar among three groups. Serum C-peptide, adiponectin, free fatty acid, HDL concentrations and truncal fat by DEXA, were different between diabetic groups. Glucose disposal rate by clamp was lowest in type 2 diabetes, followed by type 1 diabetes and controls (5.43±2.70, 7.62±2.59, 8.61±2.37 mg/min/kg, respectively, p = 0.001). Free fatty acid concentration universally plummeted during steady state of the clamp procedure regardless of diabetes types in all three groups. Adipocyte fatty acid binding protein in the entire cohort (r = -0.625, p = 0.04) and controls (r = -0.869, p = 0.046) correlated best with insulin resistance, independent of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes in Asian Americans was associated with insulin resistance despite having low BMI as type 1 diabetes, suggesting a potential role for targeting insulin resistance apart from weight loss. Adipocyte fatty acid binding protein, strongly associated with insulin resistance, independent of adiposity in the young Asian American population, may potentially serve as a biomarker to identify at-risk individuals. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Coordinated primary and specialty care for type 2 diabetes mellitus, guidelines, and systems: an educational needs assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine knowledge, competence, and attitudinal issues among primary care providers (PCPs) and diabetes specialists regarding the use and application of evidence-based clinical guidelines and the coordination of care between PCPs and diabetes specialists specifically related to referral practices for patients with diabetes. METHODS: A survey tool was completed by 491 PCPs and 249 diabetes specialists. Data were collected from specialists online and from PCP attendees at live symposia across the United States. Results were analyzed for frequency of response and evaluation of significant relationships among the variables. RESULTS: Suboptimal practice patterns and interprofessional communication as well as gaps in diabetes-related knowledge and processes were identified. PCPs reported a lack of clarity about who, PCP or specialist, should assume clinical responsibility for the management of diabetes after a specialty referral. PCPs were most likely to refer patients to diabetes specialists for management issues relating to insulin therapy and use of advanced treatment strategies, such as insulin pens and continuous glucose monitoring. A minority of PCPs and even fewer specialists reported the routine use of clinical guidelines in practice. CONCLUSION: This research-based assessment identified critical educational needs and gaps related to coordinated care for patients with diabetes as well as the need for quality- and performance-based educational interventions.