Abstract P116: Hypertension Treatment and Control in Canadians with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: 3 million Canadians and 23 million Americans have concurrent hypertension and diabetes. Blood pressure (BP) control reduces the risk of heart attacks, strokes, retinopathy, and kidney disease. We investigated hypertension control rates in patients with diabetes, responses to uncontrolled BP measurements, and use of antihypertensive drug classes. Methods: We performed an observational study of adults with diabetes and hypertension drawing from the IQIVA primary care database (contains data on 1.2 million Canadians). Our first outcome was mean BP at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after inclusion. Our second outcome was the number of uncontrolled BP measurements (≥130/80) followed by a physician BP check, medication dose/frequency increase, or new medication in the subsequent 6 weeks. Our third outcome (for a subset of individuals with medication data available) was the number of individuals prescribed renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors (RAASi), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs), or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics. Results: We identified 10,814 individuals identified with both diabetes and hypertension. Mean BP (in mmHg) remained largely unchanged over 24 months: 136.7/78.6 at 3 months, 135.5/82.2 at 6 months, 137.2/82.8 at 12 months, and 136.6/82.3 at 24 months. Over the two years of follow-up there were 55,381 uncontrolled BP events, and in the subsequent 6 weeks only 27,877 (50.3%) were followed by ≥1 physician BP checks. Among individuals with medication data, there were 16,364 uncontrolled BP events, 33.4% followed by a new antihypertensive medication and 18.2% followed by an antihypertensive dose/frequency change. Of the 6,919 individuals for whom we had medication data, 6,216 (89.8%) were prescribed a RAASi, 2,371 (34.3%) were prescribed a DHP-CCB, and 1,672 (24.2%) were prescribed thiazide/thiazide like diuretic. Conclusion: Over two-thirds (68.8%) of people with diabetes and hypertension had uncontrolled blood pressure that persisted over 2 years during which half of uncontrolled BPs were followed by a physician BP check in 6 weeks, and one-fifth by a antihypertensive dose/frequency change. While almost 90% were treated with RAASi, over a third were on a DHP-CCB and less than one quarter were treated with a thiazide/thiazide like diuretic. Therapeutic inertia and under-prescribing of dual and triple therapy contribute to persistently high BP thus represent opportunities for improvement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".