71-LB: Meta-analysis of Two Real-World Chart Review Studies to Determine the Effectiveness of FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System on HbA1c in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Managed with Basal Insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two retrospective chart review studies evaluated the effectiveness of the FreeStyle Libre® Flash Glucose Monitoring System on HbA1c when used by adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a real-world setting. Each study aimed to determine the effect of FreeStyle Libre when used for between 3 months to 6 months on HbA1c. Each study population included adults on a basal insulin regimen for at least 1 year who had been using FreeStyle Libre regularly for at least 3 months and with HbA1c between 8.0 and 12.0% (64 to 108 mmol/mol). Pregnant patients were excluded, as were patients on dialysis. This meta-analysis comprised of a total of 191 records from basal insulin using patients with T2D from 14 medical centers across Canada and the US. On average, HbA1c was 9.2±1.0% (76.8±10.7 mmol/mol) prior to FreeStyle Libre use, age was 60.0±11.3 years and average duration of insulin use 4.3±3.3 years (mean±SD), 95.8% of patients were on oral antidiabetic medications and 60.2% were male. Renal and CVD complications were reported by 31.4% and 28.3% of patients, respectively. HbA1c results were recorded between 90 and 194 days from the start of use of FreeStyle Libre, between December 2017 and March 2020. Overall mean change in HbA1c, after at least 3 months of using FreeStyle Libre, was significantly reduced by 1.1±0.14% (mean±SE); p<0.0001, with moderate to high heterogeneity between centers (Q=43.9, I2=74.9, p<0.0001) explained by differences in initial HbA1c between centers. No significant differences were detected between: age group, sex, BMI or duration of insulin use. This meta-analysis of two real-world, chart review studies concludes that people with T2D on basal insulin therapy, using FreeStyle Libre for between 3 to 6 months significantly reduced HbA1c. Disclosure A. L. Carlson: Board Member; Self; JDRF, Other Relationship; Self; Medtronic, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Omnipod, Sanofi, UnitedHealth Group. T. D. Daniel: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. A. Desantis: None. S. Jabbour: None. E. Karslioglu-french: None. D. F. Kruger: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi US, Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Stock/Shareholder; Self; Pendulum Therapeutics. E. Miller: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Research Support; Self; Pendulum Therapeutics, Research Support; Spouse/Partner; Abbott Diabetes. K. Ozer: Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, AbbVie Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. T. Elliott: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Other Relationship; Self; Abbott Diabetes. Funding Abbott Diabetes Care
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 | 0.023 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".