Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Were there differences in the initiation of treatment with newer medications to lower glucose levels between patients with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Advantage and those insured by commercial health plans from 2016 to 2019?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 382 574 adults with type 2 diabetes aged 58 to 66 years, rates of initiation of glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were lower among Medicare Advantage enrollees than among commercial health insurance plan enrollees.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that a better understanding of nonclinical factors contributing to treatment selection and efforts to promote equity in diabetes management are needed.

          Abstract

          This cohort study compares trends in initiation of treatment with glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors by older adults with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Advantage vs commercial health plans.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are associated with low rates of hypoglycemia, and postmarketing trials of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i demonstrated that these medications improved cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.

          Objective

          To compare trends in initiation of treatment with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i by older adults with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Advantage vs commercial health plans.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a deidentified database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Adults aged 58 to 66 years with type 2 diabetes who filled any medication prescription to lower glucose levels from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019, were compared between groups.

          Exposure

          Enrollment in a Medicare Advantage or commercial health insurance plan.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The odds of initiating GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment were examined for Medicare Advantage vs commercial insurance beneficiaries using 3 separate logistic regression models adjusted for year and demographic and clinical factors. These models were used to calculate adjusted annual rates of medication initiation by health plan.

          Results

          A total of 382 574 adults with pharmacologically treated type 2 diabetes (52.9% men; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [2.7] years) were identified, including 172 180 Medicare Advantage and 210 394 commercial beneficiaries. From 2016 to 2019, adjusted rates of initiation of GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment increased among all beneficiaries, from 2.14% to 20.02% for GLP-1RA among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.50% to 11.44% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; from 2.74% to 18.15% for SGLT2i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.57% to 8.51% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; and from 3.30% to 11.71% for DPP-4i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 2.44% to 7.68% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Initiation rates for all 3 drug classes were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than among commercial insurance beneficiaries. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating GLP-1RA treatment ranged from 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29) to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.75) for Medicare Advantage and commercial insurance beneficiaries, respectively; SGLT2i, from 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22) to 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61), respectively; and DPP-4i, from 0.37 (95% CI, 0.34-0.39) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78), respectively ( P < .001 for all). The odds of starting GLP-1RA and SGLT2i increased with income; for an income of $200 000 and higher vs less than $40 000, the odds ratio for GLP-1RA was 1.23 (95% CI, 1.15-1.32) and for SGLT2i was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries may be less likely than commercially insured beneficiaries to be treated with newer medications to lower glucose levels, with greater disparities among lower-income patients. Better understanding of nonclinical factors contributing to treatment decisions and efforts to promote greater equity in diabetes management appear to be needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes.

          The effects of empagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, in addition to standard care, on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk are not known.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes

              Background Canagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that reduces glycemia as well as blood pressure, body weight, and albuminuria in people with diabetes. We report the effects of treatment with canagliflozin on cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes. Methods The CANVAS Program integrated data from two trials involving a total of 10,142 participants with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. Participants in each trial were randomly assigned to receive canagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a mean of 188.2 weeks. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Results The mean age of the participants was 63.3 years, 35.8% were women, the mean duration of diabetes was 13.5 years, and 65.6% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The rate of the primary outcome was lower with canagliflozin than with placebo (occurring in 26.9 vs. 31.5 participants per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.02 for superiority). Although on the basis of the prespecified hypothesis testing sequence the renal outcomes are not viewed as statistically significant, the results showed a possible benefit of canagliflozin with respect to the progression of albuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.79) and the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, the need for renal-replacement therapy, or death from renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.77). Adverse reactions were consistent with the previously reported risks associated with canagliflozin except for an increased risk of amputation (6.3 vs. 3.4 participants per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.75); amputations were primarily at the level of the toe or metatarsal. Conclusions In two trials involving patients with type 2 diabetes and an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, patients treated with canagliflozin had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those who received placebo but a greater risk of amputation, primarily at the level of the toe or metatarsal. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; CANVAS and CANVAS-R ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01032629 and NCT01989754 , respectively.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                1 February 2021
                February 2021
                1 February 2021
                : 4
                : 2
                : e2035792
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Community Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [2 ]Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [3 ]Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, Minnesota
                [4 ]Department of Finance and Medical Industry Leadership Institute, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
                [5 ]National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [6 ]National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [7 ]Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [8 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                [9 ]Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
                [10 ]Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [11 ]Knowledge Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, Minnesota
                [12 ]OptumLabs, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: December 10, 2020.
                Published: February 1, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35792
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 McCoy RG et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, MS, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 ( mccoy.rozalina@ 123456mayo.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr McCoy had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: McCoy, Van Houten, Ross.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: McCoy.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Van Houten, Deng, Karaca-Mandic, Ross, Montori, Shah.
                Statistical analysis: Van Houten, Deng, Karaca-Mandic.
                Obtained funding: McCoy.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Shah.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McCoy reported receiving a Quality Measure Innovation Grant from the AARP outside the submitted work. Dr Karaca-Mandic reported receiving grants from the American Cancer Society, receiving personal fees from Sempre Health and Precision Health Economics, serving as chief executive officer and co-founder of XanthosHealth LLC, and serving as advisor to Koya Medical, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr Ross reported receiving grants from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Johnson & Johnson, Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Medtronic, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr Shah reported receiving research support through Mayo Clinic from the FDA to establish the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program, the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Innovation under the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative, the AHRQ, the NHLBI, NIH, the National Science Foundation, and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by the grant K23DK114497 from the the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH (Dr McCoy), Comparative Health System Performance Initiative grant 1U19HS024075 from the AHRQ (Dr Shah), and grant R01HS025164 from the AHRQ (Dr Karaca-Mandic).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: Study contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
                Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions; June 12, 2020.
                Article
                zoi201072
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35792
                7851726
                33523188
                dcf3a564-9685-4735-99b5-36024b066dde
                Copyright 2021 McCoy RG et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 4 August 2020
                : 10 December 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Diabetes and Endocrinology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content179

                Cited by31

                Most referenced authors3,191