Use of the <scp>FreeStyle Libre</scp> system and diabetes treatment progression in <scp>T2DM</scp> : Results from a retrospective cohort study using a <scp>Canadian</scp> private payer claims database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to one-third of Canadians are estimated to be living with prediabetes or diabetes. A retrospective study using Canadian private drug claims data was conducted to investigate whether flash glucose monitoring using the FreeStyle Libre system (FSL) among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canada can be associated with changes in treatment intensification when compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a Canadian national private drug claims database comprising approximately 50% coverage of insured individuals in Canada, cohorts of people with T2DM using FSL or BGM were identified algorithmically based on treatment history and followed over a 24-month study period, tracking their progression in diabetes treatment therapy. The Andersen-Gill model for recurrent time-to-event data was used to evaluate whether the rate of treatment progression differs between the FSL and BGM treatment cohorts. The survival function was used to calculate comparative treatment progression probabilities between the cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 373 871 people with T2DM met the inclusion criteria. Across treatment (FSL) and control (BGM) groups, people using FSL had a higher probability of treatment progression compared with BGM alone, with a relative risk ranging between 1.86 and 2.81 (p < .001). A higher probability of treatment progression was independent of the diabetes treatment at the enrolment date (index date) or the patient status, and independent of whether patients were treatment naïve or on established diabetes therapy. Assessment of the ending treatment relative to the starting therapy indicated that dynamic treatment changes were most evident for patients in the FSL cohort and that the FSL cohort had a much greater portion of patients who ended with insulin treatment (when they started with non-insulin treatment) compared with the BGM cohort. CONCLUSIONS: People with T2DM using FSL had a greater probability for treatment progression compared with BGM alone, irrespective of the starting therapy, which may suggest that FSL can be used to support escalation of diabetes therapy to improve therapeutic inertia in T2DM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".