Lachin John M, Genuth Saul, Nathan David M, Zinman Bernard, Rutledge Brandy N
The Biostatistics Center, The George Washington University, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
Diabetes. 2008 Apr;57(4):995-1001. doi: 10.2337/db07-1618. Epub 2008 Jan 25.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (Diabetes 44:968-983, 1995) presented statistical models suggesting that subjects with similar A1C levels had a higher risk of retinopathy progression in the conventional treatment group than in the intensive treatment group. That analysis has been cited to support the hypothesis that specific patterns of glucose variation, in particular postprandial hyperglycemia, contribute uniquely to an increased risk of microvascular complications above and beyond that explained by the A1C level.
We performed statistical evaluations of these models and additional analyses to assess whether the original analyses were flawed.
Statistically, we show that the original results are an artifact of the assumptions of the statistical model used. Additional analyses show that virtually all (96%) of the beneficial effect of intensive versus conventional therapy on progression of retinopathy is explained by the reductions in the mean A1C levels, similarly for other outcomes. Furthermore, subjects within the intensive and conventional treatment groups with similar A1C levels over time have similar risks of retinopathy progression, especially after adjusting for factors in which they differ.
A1C explains virtually all of the difference in risk of complications between the intensive and conventional groups, and a given A1C level has similar effects within the two treatment groups. While other components of hyperglycemia, such as glucose variation, may contribute to the risk of complications, such factors can only explain a small part of the differences in risk between intensive and conventional therapy over time.
糖尿病控制与并发症试验(《糖尿病》44:968 - 983,1995年)提出的统计模型表明,糖化血红蛋白(A1C)水平相似的受试者中,传统治疗组视网膜病变进展风险高于强化治疗组。该分析被引用来支持这样一种假说,即血糖变化的特定模式,尤其是餐后高血糖,除了A1C水平所解释的风险外,还独特地增加了微血管并发症的风险。
我们对这些模型进行了统计评估,并进行了额外分析,以评估原始分析是否存在缺陷。
从统计学角度,我们表明原始结果是所用统计模型假设的产物。额外分析表明,强化治疗与传统治疗相比,对视网膜病变进展的几乎所有(96%)有益效果都可由平均A1C水平的降低来解释,其他结果也类似。此外,随着时间推移,强化治疗组和传统治疗组中A1C水平相似的受试者,视网膜病变进展风险相似,尤其是在对他们存在差异的因素进行调整后。
A1C几乎解释了强化治疗组和传统治疗组并发症风险的所有差异,且给定的A1C水平在两个治疗组中具有相似的效果。虽然高血糖的其他成分,如血糖变化,可能会增加并发症风险,但这些因素只能解释强化治疗和传统治疗随时间推移风险差异的一小部分。