MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Either Cardiovascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors An Analysis of a US Health Insurance Database

2021· article· en· W3203749571 on OpenAlexaff
Juliana Meyers, Meredith Hoog, Reema Mody, Maria Yu, Keith L. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Therapeutics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineCohortCohort studyType 2 diabetesInternal medicineRisk factorDiseaseRetrospective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Health care costs and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were evaluated among US patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CV risk factors. METHODS: Patients with ≥24 months of continuous enrollment were selected from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2018. For the first qualifying 24-month period, months 1 to 12 defined the baseline period and months 13 to 24 defined the follow-up period. All patients had ≥2 T2D diagnoses during baseline. Two cohorts were created: (1) patients with ≥1 CVD diagnosis during baseline ("CVD cohort"); and (2) patients with ≥1 CV risk factor ("CV risk cohort") and no diagnosed CVD during baseline. The percentage of patients with subsequent CVD diagnoses and annual all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related costs in baseline and follow-up periods were reported. FINDINGS: In total, 1,106,716 patients met inclusion criteria: CVD cohort, 224,018 patients; CV risk cohort, 812,144 patients; and no diagnosed CVD or CV risk factors, 70,554. During baseline, 40.2% of the CVD cohort had 2 or more CVD diagnoses. During follow-up, 10.5% of the CV risk cohort had evidence of CVD (ie, emergent CVD). During baseline, the CVD cohort had mean (SD) all-cause costs of $38,985 ($69,936); T2D-related costs, $16,208 ($34,104); and CV-related annual costs, $18,842 ($44,457). The CV risk cohort had mean all-cause costs of $13,207 ($27,057); T2D-related costs, $5226 ($12,268); and CV-related costs, $2754 ($10,586). During follow-up, the CV risk cohort with emergent CVD had higher mean all-cause, T2D-related, and CV-related annual costs than costs among patients without CVD (all-cause, $39,365 [$67,731] vs $13,401 [$27,530]; T2D related, $18,520 [$37,256] vs $5732 [$12,540]; and CV related, $18,893 [$43,584] vs $2650 [$10,501], respectively). IMPLICATIONS: Costs for patients with T2D and either CVD or CV risk are substantial. In this analysis, ∼10% of patients with CV risk were diagnosed with emergent CVD. All-cause costs among patients with emergent CVD were nearly 3 times higher than those among patients with CV risk only. Because costs associated with CVD in the T2D population are high, preventing CVD events in patients with T2D has the potential to decrease overall health care costs and avoid additional disease burden for these patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TherapeuticsSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207