Secular trends in antihyperglycaemic medication prescriptions in older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease: 2004–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine how antihyperglycaemic medications were prescribed to older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease over the last decade. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of 144 252 older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or receiving chronic dialysis) in Ontario, Canada. In each study quarter (3-month intervals from 1 April 2004 until 31 March 2013) we studied the proportion of treated and newly treated patients prescribed insulin, sulphonylureas, α-glucosidase inhibitors, metformin, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. We further examined prescription trends by stage of chronic kidney disease. RESULTS: The mean age of patients increased slightly (from 76 to 78 years) over the study period and the percentage with comorbidities declined. Metformin was the predominant therapy prescribed (prescribed to a mean of 56.1% of treated patients). Glyburide (glibenclamide) and thiazolidinedione prescriptions decreased (glyburide prescriptions declined from 45.5 to 9.5%, rosiglitazone from 3.6 to 0.2% and pioglitazone from 1.9 to 1.7%), while gliclazide and DPP-4 inhibitor prescriptions increased (gliclazide prescriptions increased from 0.6 to 26.4%, sitagliptin from 0 to 15.3% and saxagliptin from 0 to 2.0%). Up to 48.6% of patients with stage 3a-5 chronic kidney disease or receiving chronic dialysis were prescribed glyburide, and up to 27.6% of patients with stage 4-5 disease or receiving chronic dialysis were prescribed metformin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic kidney disease, there were trends towards safer antihyperglycaemic medication prescribing. A considerable number of patients, however, continue to receive medications that should be avoided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".