To estimate the prevalence of potential overtreatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among older adults and to develop and compare predictive models to identify patient and physician characteristics associated with overtreatment.

Population-based retrospective cohort study with predictive modelling.

A province-wide, publicly funded healthcare system in British Columbia, Canada, using linked administrative health claims data from 2016 to 2023.

Residents of long-term care facilities over age 65, and community-dwelling individuals over age 75, with a diagnosis of T2DM and a glycated haemoglobin (A1C) laboratory value ≤7.0%. Participants were required to have ≥365 days of continuous provincial health insurance coverage prior to their index A1C test. Patients receiving palliative care and those with missing physician information were excluded.

Potential overtreatment of T2DM, defined a priori as overlapping prescriptions for ≥2 glucose-lowering medications or ≥1 insulin or sulfonylurea dispensing within 90 days after the index A1C test.

Model performance outcomes included discrimination (area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value). Performance metrics were calculated with 95% CIs using a 25% temporally distinct test dataset (2021–2023). No changes were made to outcome definitions after protocol development.

Among 133 773 patients with an A1C≤7.0%, 38 074 (28.5%) were classified as overtreated. These patients had a mean age of 79.6 years, were 47% female, and had a median A1C of 6.4%. The gradient boost model was the best performing model overall, using a combination of expert-selected variables and data-driven variables, achieving an AUC of 0.87, sensitivity of 0.81 and negative predictive value of 0.89. The top predictors of overtreatment included use of blood glucose test strips, A1C test volume, polypharmacy, specialist involvement and measures of diabetes severity.

Overtreatment of T2DM was prevalent among older adults in our cohort. Machine learning algorithms that integrate clinical expertise with data-driven variable selection performed the best in predicting T2DM overtreatment. We identified several patient and physician characteristics as key contributors that may inform future clinical practice and quality improvement initiatives, although external validation is required before clinical implementation.

Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are standard practice in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO). Their insertion can be associated with significant patient discomfort and complications. Current research suggests that patients with ASBO managed with NGTs may experience poorer outcomes and higher rates of operative intervention compared with those managed without. However, to date, there are no prospective clinical trials evaluating this.

This study will be designed as a single centre, prospective, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial to determine if the avoidance of an NGT is non-inferior to its use in ASBO. Patients meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised to either receive an NGT or no NGT for ASBO management. The primary outcome will be the rate of operative intervention as determined by review of medical records at day 30 post discharge. Secondary outcomes will include rate of bowel resection or bowel ischaemia, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, time to operative intervention, rate of ICU admission, incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), quality of life scores (European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level: EQ-5D-5L) at admission, day 30 and day 90, 90-day mortality, incidence of pulmonary complications (Melbourne Group Scale), rate of NGT specific complications and rate of Gastrografin use. The study will be powered at 80% to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10% between groups receiving an NGT compared with no NGT, requiring a total of 490 study participants. Statistical analysis will follow intention to treat principles. Differences between treatment arms will be summarised using mean differences, 95% CIs and p values.

This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00296). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

This study has been registered prospectively in the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000341628).