Variation in First-line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment due to eGFR and Provider Preferences: A Novel Statistical Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction The decision between metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor or sulfonylurea for first-line type 2 diabetes treatment relies on many factors, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), history of heart failure, age, sex, and even provider preferences. This study evaluates variation in this treatment decision across two factors: eGFR and provider preferences. Research Design and Methods Using health insurance claims data, we defined a cohort based on observation prior to first-line treatment, availability of eGFR results, and no type 1 or gestational diabetes (n=10,643). We performed a chi-squared test to verify the association between eGFR and treatment. The cohort was then restricted to providers with at least 10 patients (n=2,271 patients). We conducted a novel statistical analysis to assess variation across providers. We fitted two models to predict treatment—one using only patient characteristics (age, eGFR, sex, history of heart failure, and treatment date) and another using both patient characteristics and provider-specific random effects. With these models, we performed a generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) to assess whether including provider-specific random effects improved fit. Results The chi-squared test confirmed significant association between treatment and eGFR (p < 0.0001). The GLRT in our novel statistical analysis found significant variation existed across providers even after accounting for patient characteristics (p < 0.0001). Visualizations of the observed treatment decisions and treatment policy models show that most of this variation across providers occurred at low eGFR levels, where the level of kidney damage at which metformin should be contraindicated is unclear. Conclusions While some variation in first-line type 2 diabetes treatment was associated with eGFR, some variation may be due to provider preferences that cannot be explained by treatment guidelines. Further studies can elucidate whether such variation across providers is appropriate. Our approach can be applied to other treatment decisions to improve diabetes management. Key Messages What is already known on this topic Guidelines for first-line type 2 diabetes treatments recommend metformin unless there are contraindications, such as kidney damage indicated by low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). What this study adds This study uses a health insurance claims dataset to verify that first-line treatment is significantly associated with eGFR levels. Then, we propose a novel statistical analysis to assess whether significant variation exists across providers even after accounting for patient age, eGFR, sex, history of heart failure, and treatment date. By fitting two random effects models—one with only patient characteristics and one that also utilizes provider-specific random effects—and comparing the likelihoods of the observed treatment decisions under the two models, we find that the treatment decisions can be explained significantly better when accounting for differences among providers in treatment preferences and eGFR considerations. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy Our results suggest future studies about whether the significant variation across providers found in our analysis is appropriate may help improve first-line type 2 diabetes treatment decisions, and our novel statistical approach can be applied to evaluate variation across providers throughout the diabetes management process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».