4.5 Article

Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes With Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Journal

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 769-775

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2021.05.001

Keywords

continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; diabetes technology; disparities; type 1 diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study on young adults with type 1 diabetes found lower utilization of CSII in Black, Hispanic, male, and government-insured individuals, who also had higher HbA1c levels. Black, Hispanic, and government-insured subjects had higher odds of DKA.
Objective: To evaluate which factors determine utilization patterns and outcomes of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in young adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Utilizing the Optum deidentified electronic health record data set between 2008 to 2018 to perform a retrospective cohort study, we identified 2104 subjects with type 1 diabetes aged 18 to 30 years. We evaluated the effect of race on determining CSII utilization, HbA1c (%), and hospital admission for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Crude and adjusted estimates were computed using logistic regression and linear mixed models. Results: There was low CSII utilization among individuals who were Black, Hispanic, male, and those with governmental insurance. These groups also demonstrated higher HbA1c levels. Subjects who were Black, Hispanic, and those with governmental insurance had higher odds of DKA. Even when commercially insured, Black and Hispanic subjects demonstrated higher HbA1c levels, and Black individuals had higher odds of DKA. Conclusion: In a large electronic health record database in the U.S., there was low CSII utilization overall, particularly in Black and Hispanic minorities, despite CSII showing superior HbA1c control without an increase in DKA events. (C) 2021 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available