Search

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative hazards of acute and chronic diabetes complications among people with diabetes across the U.S. rural-urban continuum. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a deidentified data set of U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, to follow 2,901,563 adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2021. We compared adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of diabetes complications in remote areas (population <2,500), small towns (population 2,500–50,000), and cities (population >50,000). RESULTS: Compared with residents of cities, residents of remote areas had greater hazards of myocardial infarction (HR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02–1.10]) and revascularization (HR 1.04 [1.02–1.06]) but lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.90 [0.83–0.98]) and stroke (HR 0.91 [0.88–0.95]). Compared with cities, residents of small towns had greater hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 1.06 [1.02–1.10]), hypoglycemia (HR 1.15 [1.12–1.18]), end-stage kidney disease (HR 1.04 [1.03–1.06]), myocardial infarction (HR 1.10 [1.08–1.12]), heart failure (HR 1.05 [1.03–1.06]), amputation (HR 1.05 [1.02–1.09]), other lower-extremity complications (HR 1.02 [1.01–1.03]), and revascularization (HR 1.05 [1.04–1.06]) but a smaller hazard of stroke (HR 0.95 [0.94–0.97]). Compared with small towns, residents of remote areas had lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.85 [0.78–0.93]), hypoglycemia (HR 0.92 [0.87–0.97]), and heart failure (HR 0.94 [0.91–0.97]). Hazards of retinopathy and atrial fibrillation/flutter did not vary geographically. CONCLUSIONS: Adults in small towns are disproportionately impacted by complications of diabetes. Future studies should probe for the reasons underlying these disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Do hospitals achieve equitable readmission rates (ie, fewer readmissions with narrow gaps in readmission rates between populations)? What characterizes hospitals with equitable readmissions? Findings: Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmissions by insurance, and 30% had equitable readmissions by race. Hospitals with and without equitable readmissions were characteristically different. Achieving equitable readmissions did not consistently correlate with quality, cost, or value. Many hospitals were not eligible for a disparities assessment due to insufficient numbers of dual-eligible and Black patients. Meaning: A minority of hospitals achieve equitable readmissions. Equity-focused outcome measures assess new dimensions of hospital performance distinct from traditional accountability measures. Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non–dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance—quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P <.01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P =.01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P <.01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals. This cross-sectional study of US hospitals compared hospital and patient characteristics to evaluate equitable rates of readmission by insurance (dual eligible [Medicare and Medicaid] vs non–dual eligible) and race (Black vs White). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: There has been growing interest in better understanding the potential of observational research methods in medical product evaluation and regulatory decision-making. Previously, we used linked claims and electronic health record data to emulate two ongoing randomized controlled trials, characterizing the populations and results of each randomized controlled trial prior to publication of its results. Here, our objective was to compare the populations and results from the emulated trials with those of the now-published randomized controlled trials. Methods: This study compared participants' demographic and clinical characteristics and study results between the emulated trials, which used structured data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, and the published PRONOUNCE and GRADE trials. First, we examined the feasibility of implementing the baseline participant characteristics included in the published PRONOUNCE and GRADE trials' using real-world data and classified each variable as ascertainable, partially ascertainable, or not ascertainable. Second, we compared the emulated trials and published randomized controlled trials for baseline patient characteristics (concordance determined using standardized mean differences <0.20) and results of the primary and secondary endpoints (concordance determined by direction of effect estimates and statistical significance). Results: The PRONOUNCE trial enrolled 544 participants, and the emulated trial included 2226 propensity score-matched participants. In the PRONOUNCE trial publication, one of the 32 baseline participant characteristics was listed as an exclusion criterion on ClinicalTrials.gov but was ultimately not used. Among the remaining 31 characteristics, 9 (29.0%) were ascertainable, 11 (35.5%) were partially ascertainable, and 10 (32.2%) were not ascertainable using structured data from OptumLabs. For one additional variable, the PRONOUNCE trial did not provide sufficient detail to allow its ascertainment. Of the nine variables that were ascertainable, values in the emulated trial and published randomized controlled trial were discordant for 6 (66.7%). The primary endpoint of time from randomization to the first major adverse cardiovascular event and secondary endpoints of nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke were concordant between the emulated trial and published randomized controlled trial. The GRADE trial enrolled 5047 participants, and the emulated trial included 7540 participants. In the GRADE trial publication, 8 of 34 (23.5%) baseline participant characteristics were ascertainable, 14 (41.2%) were partially ascertainable, and 11 (32.4%) were not ascertainable using structured data from OptumLabs. For one variable, the GRADE trial did not provide sufficient detail to allow for ascertainment. Of the eight variables that were ascertainable, values in the emulated trial and published randomized controlled trial were discordant for 4 (50.0%). The primary endpoint of time to hemoglobin A1c ≥7.0% was mostly concordant between the emulated trial and the published randomized controlled trial. Conclusion: Despite challenges, observational methods and real-world data can be leveraged in certain important situations for a more timely evaluation of drug effectiveness and safety in more diverse and representative patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable. Key Points Neonatal care providers perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Perceptions of teleneonatology do not differ based on professional role or years of experience. Perceptions of teleneonatology are especially high in smaller hospitals with well newborn nurseries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]