MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281745128 · doi:10.2337/db22-680-p

680-P: Effect of the FreeStyle Libre System on Diabetes Treatment for People with T2D: Results from a Retrospective Cohort Study Using Canadian Private Payer Claims Database

2022· article· en· W4281745128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stewart B. Harris, FLEUR LEVRAT-GUILLEN

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesCohortGlycemicReimbursementRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineInsulinEndocrinologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Therapeutic inertia is a major contributor to people with diabetes not achieving glycemic goals. We assessed for patients with T2D the impact of using the FreeStyle Libre system (FSL) vs. blood glucose monitoring (BGM) on treatment intensification. Method: We carried out a matched retrospective cohort study using secondary private payer claims data including >30 million diabetes drug and device claims filled by over 850,000 patients with T2D >18 in Canada over 24 months. Each month, patients were classified by level of therapy progression: 1. No diabetes drug therapy; 2. Mono Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents (OHAs) ; 3. Dual OHAs; 4. Triple OHAs; 5. Quad or more OHAs; 6. Injectable GLP1-RA (±concomitant OHAs) ; 7. Basal insulin (±concomitant OHAs) ; 8. MDI insulin (±concomitant OHAs) . Results: A total of 373,871 patients met the inclusion criteria. Across all treatment cohorts, the FSL treatment groups were found to have a statistically higher probability of treatment intensification relative to BGM: Conclusion: Reimbursement of FSL for patients with T2D in Canada is associated with decreased time lag for glucose lowering therapy compared to those using BGM alone. These findings suggest that FSL data impact clinicians to facilitate earlier and more intensive therapy modifications and thus reduce treatment inertia. Disclosure S.B.Harris: Consultant; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Other Relationship; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Dexcom, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Research Support; Applied Therapeutics Inc., AstraZeneca, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) , Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, The Lawson Foundation. F.Levrat-guillen: Employee; Abbott. Funding Funded by 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207