Persistent disparities in diabetes medication receipt by socio-economic disadvantage in Australia.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown how use of newer glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) has changed in Australia following the publication of clinical trials demonstrating definitive clinical advantages for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), and whether this varies by socio-economic disadvantage. METHODS: We included 1,064,645 people with type 2 diabetes registered on the National Diabetes Services Scheme. This cohort was linked to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme database to evaluate trends in diabetes medication receipt and variation by socio-economic disadvantage between 2013 and 2019. RESULTS: The proportion of people with type 2 diabetes receiving ≥3 GLDs concurrently increased from 12% in 2013 to 25% in 2019. By 2019, 6% of people with diabetes were receiving a GLP-1 RA and 21% an SGLT2i. Disparities in receipt of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is by socio-economic disadvantage decreased over time (ORs for most vs. least disadvantaged quintile were 0.80 [0.77-0.85] and 0.87 [0.82-0.94] in 2014 and 0.95 [0.92-0.98] and 1.07 [1.05-1.09] in 2019 for GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is, respectively). However, people in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to receive multiple GLDs. After stratifying by number of concurrent GLDs received, people in more disadvantaged areas were less likely to receive GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is in 2019 (ORs for most vs. least disadvantaged: 0.81 [0.78-0.84] and 0.90 [0.87-0.93] for people receiving ≥3 GLDs, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for intensity of glucose-lowering therapy, people in more disadvantaged areas were less likely to receive cardioprotective GLDs, although disparities decreased over time.

The association of socioeconomic disadvantage and remoteness with receipt of type 2 diabetes medications in Australia: a nationwide registry study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In recent years, several new medications for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been released and some evidence indicates sociodemographic disparity in their utilisation. We sought to investigate sociodemographic disparities in receipt of diabetes medications across Australia. METHODS: This study included 1,203,317 people with type 2 diabetes registered on the Australian National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS) followed from 2007 to 2015. The NDSS was linked to the Australian pharmaceutical claims database. We investigated trends in diabetes medication dispensing and variation in dispensing by sociodemographic strata. RESULTS: Compared with individuals in the least disadvantaged areas, those in the most disadvantaged quintile were less likely to receive dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in the first year of availability (OR [95% CI] for most vs least disadvantaged: 0.78 [0.75, 0.82], 0.65 [0.60, 0.71] and 0.89 [0.84, 0.95], respectively). These disparities dissipated over time for DPP4is and SGLT2is but remained significant for GLP-1RAs. The OR (95% CI) of receiving DPP4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is in the first year of availability for people in remote areas vs major cities was 0.46 (0.39, 0.54), 0.46 (0.35, 0.61) and 0.71 (0.59, 0.84), respectively. These disparities remained significant through to 2015. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: People with diabetes in more disadvantaged areas are less likely to receive newer diabetes medications, although this effect decreased over time. However, there are considerable and persistent differences in receipt of newer diabetes medications between major cities and remote areas of Australia. Graphical abstract.

Root cause analysis of fall-related hospitalisations among residents of aged care services.

BACKGROUND: Fall-related hospitalisations from residential aged care services (RACS) are distressing for residents and costly to the healthcare system. Strategies to limit hospitalisations include preventing injurious falls and avoiding hospital transfers when falls occur. AIMS: To undertake a root cause analysis (RCA) of fall-related hospitalisations from RACS and identify opportunities for fall prevention and hospital avoidance. METHODS: An aggregated RCA of 47 consecutive fall-related hospitalisations for 40 residents over a 12-month period at six South Australian RACS was undertaken. Comprehensive data were extracted from RACS records including nursing progress notes, medical records, medication charts, hospital summaries and incident reports by a nurse clinical auditor and clinical pharmacist. Root cause identification was performed by the research team. A multidisciplinary expert panel recommended strategies for falls prevention and hospital avoidance. RESULTS: Overall, 55.3% of fall-related hospitalisations were among residents with a history of falls. Among all fall-related hospitalisations, at least one high falls risk medication was administered regularly prior to hospitalisation. Potential root causes of falling included medication initiations and dose changes. Root causes for hospital transfers included need for timely access to subsidised medical services or radiology. Strategies identified for avoiding hospitalisations included pharmacy-generated alerts when medications associated with an increased risk of falls are initiated or changed, multidisciplinary audit and feedback of falls risk medication use and access to subsidised mobile imaging services. CONCLUSIONS: This aggregate RCA identified a range of strategies to address resident and system-level factors to minimise fall-related hospitalisations.