Socioeconomic Status and Cardiovascular Risk Control in Adults With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between subjective social status (SSS) and objective social status (OSS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Adult study participants (N = 358) were recruited from 2 primary care settings. The CVD risk factors included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The OSS was assessed by income, education and employment. The SSS was measured using the validated MacArthur Scales of Subjective Social Status to demarcate self-reported perceptions of having the most money, education and respected job using a ladder scale (1 = rung 1, 10 = rung 10). Multiple linear regression was used to examine associations between CVD risk factors and SSC and OSS controlling for age, sex, race or ethnicity, marital status, employment status, income, study site, comorbidity, education and insurance status. RESULTS: Fully adjusted models showed that rung 2 (P = 0.029), rung 3 (P = 0.032), rung 8 (P = 0.049) and rung 9 (P = 0.032) of the SSS to be significantly associated with poorer DBP. Annual income ≥ $75,000 was significantly associated with lower LDL-C (P = 0.021). Employment was associated with lower HbA1c (P = 0.036), but higher LDL-C (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The SSS and OSSS levels are differentially associated with HbA1c, DBP and LDL-C. Findings provide new information about patients' perspectives of the relationship between social status and diabetes-related outcomes.

Depressive symptoms, serious psychological distress, diabetes distress and cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control and elevated depressive symptoms (EDS), serious psychological distress (SPD), and diabetes distress (DD) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of adults seen at an academic medical center and Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the southeastern US. Linear regression models were computed using CVD risk factors as clinically meaningful outcomes (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure; and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)); EDS, SPD, and DD were primary independent variables. Covariates included sociodemographics and comorbidities. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 361 adults. Correlation analyses showed significant relationships between DD and HbA1c, DBP, and LDL-C. Adjusted linear regression models showed DD to be significantly associated with HbA1c and LDL-C, and SPD to be significantly associated only with LDL-C. In the fully adjusted model, DD remained significantly associated with HbA1c (ß=4.349; 95% CI (-0.649, 2.222)). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of adults with T2DM, DD and SPD were significantly associated with CVD risk factors; however, after controlling for covariates, only DD was shown to be significantly associated with poor glycemic control. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies are warranted to examine the relationship between DD and CVD risk factor control in patients with T2DM.

Diabetes and age-related demographic differences in risk factor control.

Disparate vascular outcomes in diabetes by race and/or ethnicity may reflect differential risk factor control, especially pre-Medicare. Assess concurrent target attainment for glycohemoglobin <7%, non-high density lipoprotein-cholesterol <130 mg/dL, and blood pressure <140/<90 mm Hg in white, black, and Hispanic diabetics <65 years and ≥65 years of age. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999-2010 data were analyzed on diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetics ≥18 years old. Concurrent target attainment was higher in whites (18.7%) than blacks (13.4% [P = .02] and Hispanics [10.3%, P < .001] <65 years but not ≥65 years of age; 20.0% vs. 15.9% [P = .13], 19.5% [P = .88]). Disparities in health care insurance among younger whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively, (87.4% vs. 81.1%, P < .01; 68.0%, P < .001) and infrequent health care (0-1 visits/y; 14.3% vs. 15.0%, P = not significant; 32.0%, P < .001) declined with age. Cholesterol treatment predicted concurrent control in both age groups (multivariable odds ratio >2, P < .001). Risk factor awareness and treatment were lower in Hispanics than whites. When treated, diabetes and hypertension control were greater in whites than blacks or Hispanics. Concurrent risk factor control is low in all diabetics and could improve with greater statin use. Insuring younger adults, especially Hispanic, could raise risk factor awareness and treatment. Improving treatment effectiveness in younger black and Hispanic diabetics could promote equitable risk factor control.

Blood pressure and cholesterol control in hypertensive hypercholesterolemic patients: national health and nutrition examination surveys 1988-2010.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension doubles coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Treating hypertension only reduces CHD risk ≈25%. Treating hypercholesterolemia in hypertensive patients reduces residual CHD risk >35%. METHODS AND RESULTS: To assess progress in concurrent hypertension and hypercholesterolemia control, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1988 to 1994, 1999 to 2004, and 2005 to 2010 were analyzed. Hypertension was defined by blood pressure ≥140/≥90 mm Hg, current medication treatment, and 2-told hypertension status; blood pressure <140/<90 defined control. Hypercholesterolemia was defined by ATP III criteria based on 10-year CHD risk, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; values below diagnostic thresholds defined control. Across surveys, 60.7% to 64.3% of hypertensives were hypercholesterolemic. From 1988 to 1994 to 2005 to 2010, control of LDL-C rose (9.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.6%-11.9%] to 45.4% [95% CI, 42.6%-48.3%]), concomitant hypertension and LDL-C (5.0% [95% CI, 3.3%-6.7%] to 30.7% [95% CI, 27.9%-33.4%]), and combined hypertension, LDL-C, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1.8% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.2%] to 26.9% [95% CI, 24.4%-29.5%]). By multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with concomitant hypertension, LDL-C, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (odds ratio [95% CI]) were statin (10.7 [8.1-14.3]) and antihypertensive (3.32 [2.45-4.50]) medications, age (0.77 [0.69-0.88]/10-year increase), ≥2 healthcare visits/yr (1.90 [1.26-2.87]), black race (0.59 [0.44-0.80]), Hispanic ethnicity (0.62 [0.43-0.90]), cardiovascular disease (0.44 [0.34-0.56]), and diabetes mellitus (0.54 [0.42-0.70]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress, opportunities for improving concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia control persist. Prescribing antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic medications to achieve treatment goals, especially for older, minority, diabetic, and cardiovascular disease patients, and accessing healthcare at least biannually could improve concurrent risk factor control and CHD prevention.

Evaluating concordance to American Diabetes Association standards of care for type 2 diabetes through group visits in an uninsured or inadequately insured patient population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a managed care approach to health care delivery, group visits, in the management of uninsured or inadequately insured patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive their care in group visits or usual care for 6 months. After 6 months, concordance with 10 process-of-care indicators recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care was evaluated through chart abstraction. The 10 items evaluated were up-to-date HbA(1c) levels and lipid profiles, urine for microalbumin, appropriate use of ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, use of lipid-lowering agents where indicated, daily aspirin use, annual foot examinations, annual referrals for retinal examinations, and immunizations against streptococcal pneumonia and influenza. RESULTS: Patients who received care in group visits showed statistically significant improvement in concordance with these 10 process-of-care indicators (P < 0.001). Of the patients, 76% who received care in group visits had at least 9 of these 10 items up to date, as compared with 23% of control patients; 86% of patients in group visits had at least 8 of the 10 indicators compared with 47% of control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Group visits proved more effective in promoting concordance with ADA standards of care than usual care in the treatment of uninsured or inadequately insured patients with type 2 diabetes.