Back

Real-World Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Second-Line Treatment Allocation Among Patients

Davidson, J.; Vashisht, R.; Radtke, K.; Patel, A.; Koliwad, S. K.; Butte, A. J.

2025-03-27 endocrinology
10.1101/2025.03.26.25324631 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic disparities on the allocation of second-line treatments among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and MethodsWe conducted an observational study using real-world data from over 9 million patients across five University of California Health centers. The study included patients who initiated a second-line T2D medication after metformin, with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements within {+/-}7 days of treatment initiation from 2012 through September 2024. Multinomial regression models assessed the association between socioeconomic status and second-line treatment choices. Additionally, we used the GPT-4 large language model with a zero-shot learning approach to analyze 270 clinical notes from 105 UCSF patients. GPT-4 identified adverse social determinants of health (SDOH) across six domains: transportation, housing, relationships, patients with children, support, and employment. ResultsAmong 15,090 patients (56.7% male, 43.3% female; mean age 59.3 years; mean HbA1c 8.91%), second-line treatments included sulfonylureas (SUs; n = 6,732), DPP4 inhibitors (n = 2,918), GLP-1 receptor agonists (n = 2,736), and SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 2,704). Patients from lower socioeconomic neighborhoods were more likely to receive SUs over other medications: DPP4i (OR = 0.96, [95% CI, 0.95-0.98]), GLP-1RA (OR = 0.94, [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]), SGLT2i (OR = 0.95, [95% CI, 0.93-0.97]). In UCSF clinical notes, we identified adverse SDOH including housing (n=8), transportation (n=1), relationships (n=22), employment (n=12), support (n=1), and patients with children (n=25). ConclusionsSocioeconomic factors influence second-line T2D treatment choices. Addressing these disparities is essential to ensuring equitable access to advanced T2D therapies.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.