Assessment of individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic prescriptions for type 2 diabetes based on uplift model

WU Xin-ying; LIU Xiao-juan; PAN Feng-ming; ZHAO Hong-yu; FENG Yi-ping; WANG Shu-kang; JI Xiao-kang; ZHANG Zhen-tang; WANG Qing; XUE Fu-zhong

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.06.005

Volume 25 Issue 6

Jul. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION > 2021 > 25(6): 644-649, 678

WU Xin-ying, LIU Xiao-juan, PAN Feng-ming, ZHAO Hong-yu, FENG Yi-ping, WANG Shu-kang, JI Xiao-kang, ZHANG Zhen-tang, WANG Qing, XUE Fu-zhong. Assessment of individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic prescriptions for type 2 diabetes based on uplift model[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, 2021, 25(6): 644-649, 678. doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.06.005

Citation:

WU Xin-ying, LIU Xiao-juan, PAN Feng-ming, ZHAO Hong-yu, FENG Yi-ping, WANG Shu-kang, JI Xiao-kang, ZHANG Zhen-tang, WANG Qing, XUE Fu-zhong. Assessment of individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic prescriptions for type 2 diabetes based on uplift model[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, 2021, 25(6): 644-649, 678. doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.06.005

Citation:

WU Xin-ying, LIU Xiao-juan, PAN Feng-ming, ZHAO Hong-yu, FENG Yi-ping, WANG Shu-kang, JI Xiao-kang, ZHANG Zhen-tang, WANG Qing, XUE Fu-zhong. Assessment of individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic prescriptions for type 2 diabetes based on uplift model[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, 2021, 25(6): 644-649, 678. doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.06.005

PDF( 1664 KB)

Assessment of individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic prescriptions for type 2 diabetes based on uplift model

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.06.005

1.
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Institute of Health and Medical Research, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China
2.
Department of Health Management, Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Qingdao West Coast New Area, Qingdao 266400, China

Funds:

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2020YFC2003500

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81773547

Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province ZR2019ZD02

More Information

Corresponding author: WANG Qing, E-mail: wangqing1984@126.com; XUE Fu-zhong, E-mail: xuefzh@sdu.edu.cn
Received Date: 2021-04-19
Rev Recd Date: 2021-05-18
Publish Date: 2021-06-10

Abstract

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the individualized treatment effect of antidiabetic medications for type 2 diabetes in the real world and to identify the benefited individuals from each prescription as well as their characteristics by uplift modeling. Methods Data was collected from the Comprehensive Intervention Program of Chronic Diseases in Jiaonan, Shandong Province from Jannary 1, 2012 to Delember 31, 2018. Patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this study. The intervention groups were given three prescriptions, including metformin, glipizide and metformin combined with glipizide, while the control group was given no medication. The outcome was whether the last FPG measured during the observation period reached standard. According to the propensity score matching method with a match ratio of 1∶1, the simulated randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the average effect of three prescriptions. The uplift model was used to evaluate the individual treatment effect and to identify the characteristics of the individuals who benefit from treatment. Results A total of 5 652 people were included in the cohort, with an average age of (64.20±11.48) years old, 2 239 males (39.61%). There were 1 707 patients in the metformin group, 321 patients in the glipizide group, 535 patients in the metformin combined with glipizide group, and 3 089 patients in the non-treatment group. The propensity scores of the three hypoglycemic prescriptions groups and the control group were basically balanced after matching. There were no statistical difference in blood glucose control rate between the three groups and the control group. However, the individual treatment effect evaluation based on the uplift model showed that all of the three drug prescriptions were more effective in some patients, with a ratio of 68.59%, 65.37% and 51.89%, respectively. What's more, three hypoglycemic prescriptions had a cumulative incremental effect of over 8.24%, 9.60% and 10.53% compared with random intervention, respectively. Conclusion According to the uplift model, the personalized effect can be evaluated, which is helpful to provide reference for the characteristic identification of personalized medication for type 2 diabetes.
- Type 2 diabetes,
- Real world research,
- Uplift model,
- Individualized treatment effect

FullText(HTML)

References(25)

References

[1]	Chen L, Magliano DJ, Zimmet PZ. The worldwide epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus: present and future perspectives[J]. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2011, 8(4): 228-236. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2011.183.
[2]	NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants[J]. Lancet, 2016, 387(10027): 1513-1530. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00618-8.
[3]	Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030[J]. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2010, 87(1): 4-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.007.
[4]	Maffi P, Secchi A. The burden of diabetes: emerging data[J]. Dev Ophthalmol, 2017, 60: 1-5. DOI: 10.1159/000459641.
[5]	Navarro-Pérez J, Orozco-Beltran D, Gil-Guillen V, et al. Mortality and cardiovascular disease burden of uncontrolled diabetes in a registry-based cohort: the ESCARVAL-risk study[J]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2018, 18(1): 180. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-018-0914-1.
[6]	中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2017年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志, 2018, 10(1): 4-67. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2018.01.003. Diabetes Society of Chinese Medical Association. Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China (2017 edition)[J]. Chin J Diabetes Mellitus, 2018, 10(1): 4-67. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2018.01.003.
[7]	Ji LN, Lu JM, Guo XH, et al. Glycemic control among patients in China with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral drugs or injectables[J]. BMC Public Health, 2013, 13: 602. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-602.
[8]	Sherifali D, Nerenberg K, Pullenayegum E, et al. The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Diabetes Care, 2010, 33(8): 1859-1864. DOI: 10.2337/dc09-1727.
[9]	American Diabetes Association. Diabetes advocacy: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018[J]. Diabetes Care, 2018, 41(Suppl 1): S152-S153. DOI: 10.2337/dc18-S015.
[10]	Blonde L, Khunti K, Harris SB, et al. Interpretation and impact of real-world clinical data for the practicing clinician[J]. Adv Ther, 2018, 35(11): 1763-1774. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-018-0805-y.
[11]	Barnish MS, Turner S. The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health[J]. Pragmat Obs Res, 2017, 8: 49-55. DOI: 10.2147/POR.S137701.
[12]	宋捷, 林海, 金春林, 等. 国内外糖尿病用药结构比较与分析[J]. 中国药业, 2020, 29(22): 7-10. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4931.2020.22.002. Song J, Lin H, Jin CL, et al. Comparison and analysis of the structure of antidiabetic drugs usage at home and abroad[J]. China Pharm, 2020, 29(22): 7-10. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4931.2020.22.002.
[13]	Guelman L, Guillén M, Pérez-Marín AM. Uplift random forests[J]. Cybern Syst, 2015, 46(3-4): 230-248. DOI: 10.1080/01969722.2015.1012892.
[14]	Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies[J]. Multivariate Behav Res, 2011, 46(3): 399-424. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
[15]	Drake C, Fisher L. Prognostic models and the propensity score[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 1995, 24(1): 183-187. DOI: 10.1093/ije/24.1.183.
[16]	Guelman L, Guillén M, Pérez-Marín AM. Random forests for uplift modeling: an insurance customer retention case[J]. LNBIP, 2012, 115: 123-133. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-30433-0_13.
[17]	Rzepakowski P, Jaroszewicz S. Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments[J]. Knowl Inf Syst, 2012, 32(2): 303-327. DOI: 10.1007/s10115-011-0434-0.
[18]	Edwards S. Thomas M. Cover Joy A. Thomas elements of information theory 2nd ed. 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc[J]. Inf Process Manag, 2008, 44(1): 400-401. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.02.009.
[19]	Rzepakowski P, Jaroszewicz S. Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments[J]. Knowl Inf Syst, 2012, 32(2): 303-327. DOI: 10.1007/s10115-011-0434-0.
[20]	王国强, 刘云霞. 不同药物联合治疗2型糖尿病的效果对比[J]. 中国卫生标准管理, 2021, 12(4): 107-109. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2021.04.040. Wang GQ, Liu YX. Comparison of the effect of different drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus[J]. China Heal Stand Manag, 2021, 12(4): 107-109. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2021.04.040.
[21]	高蕾莉, 纪立农, 陆菊明, 等. 2009~2012年我国2型糖尿病患者药物治疗与血糖控制状况调查[J]. 中国糖尿病杂志, 2014, 22(7): 594-598. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2014.07.005. Gao LL, Ji LN, Lu JM, et al. Current status of blood glucose control and treatment of type 2 diabetes in China 2009-2012[J]. Chin J Diabetes, 2014, 22(7): 594-598. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6187.2014.07.005.
[22]	Holland PW, Rubin DB. Causal inference in retrospective studies[J]. ETS Res Rep Ser, 1987(1): 203-231. DOI: 10.1002/j.2330-8516.1987.tb00211.x.
[23]	Anyanwagu U, Mamza J, Gordon J, et al. Premixed vs basal-bolus insulin regimen in type 2 diabetes: comparison of clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials and real-world data[J]. Diabet Med, 2017, 34(12): 1728-1736. DOI: 10.1111/dme.13518.
[24]	Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects[J]. Biometrika, 1983, 70(1): 41-55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
[25]	Guelman L, Guillén M, Pérez-Marín AM. A decision support framework to implement optimal personalized marketing interventions[J]. Decis Support Syst, 2015, 72: 24-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.010.