Tzoulaki Ioanna, Molokhia Mariam, Curcin Vasa, Little Mark P, Millett Christopher J, Ng Anthea, Hughes Robert I, Khunti Kamlesh, Wilkins Martin R, Majeed Azeem, Elliott Paul
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG.
BMJ. 2009 Dec 3;339:b4731. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4731.
To investigate the risk of incident myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and all cause mortality associated with prescription of oral antidiabetes drugs.
Retrospective cohort study.
UK general practice research database, 1990-2005.
91,521 people with diabetes.
Incident myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and all cause mortality. Person time intervals for drug treatment were categorised by drug class, excluding non-drug intervals and intervals for insulin.
3588 incident cases of myocardial infarction, 6900 of congestive heart failure, and 18,548 deaths occurred. Compared with metformin, monotherapy with first or second generation sulphonylureas was associated with a significant 24% to 61% excess risk for all cause mortality (P<0.001) and second generation sulphonylureas with an 18% to 30% excess risk for congestive heart failure (P=0.01 and P<0.001). The thiazolidinediones were not associated with risk of myocardial infarction; pioglitazone was associated with a significant 31% to 39% lower risk of all cause mortality (P=0.02 to P<0.001) compared with metformin. Among the thiazolidinediones, rosiglitazone was associated with a 34% to 41% higher risk of all cause mortality (P=0.14 to P=0.01) compared with pioglitazone. A large number of potential confounders were accounted for in the study; however, the possibility of residual confounding or confounding by indication (differences in prognostic factors between drug groups) cannot be excluded.
Our findings suggest a relatively unfavourable risk profile of sulphonylureas compared with metformin for all outcomes examined. Pioglitazone was associated with reduced all cause mortality compared with metformin. Pioglitazone also had a favourable risk profile compared with rosiglitazone; although this requires replication in other studies, it may have implications for prescribing within this class of drugs.
研究口服抗糖尿病药物处方与新发心肌梗死、充血性心力衰竭及全因死亡率的风险。
回顾性队列研究。
英国全科医疗研究数据库,1990 - 2005年。
91521例糖尿病患者。
新发心肌梗死、充血性心力衰竭及全因死亡率。药物治疗的人时区间按药物类别分类,不包括非药物区间和胰岛素区间。
发生3588例新发心肌梗死、6900例充血性心力衰竭及18548例死亡。与二甲双胍相比,第一代或第二代磺脲类单药治疗与全因死亡率显著增加24%至61%相关(P<0.001),第二代磺脲类与充血性心力衰竭风险增加18%至30%相关(P = 0.01和P<0.001)。噻唑烷二酮类与心肌梗死风险无关;与二甲双胍相比,吡格列酮与全因死亡率显著降低31%至39%相关(P = 0.02至P<0.001)。在噻唑烷二酮类中,与吡格列酮相比,罗格列酮与全因死亡率风险增加34%至41%相关(P = 0.14至P = 0.01)。研究中考虑了大量潜在混杂因素;然而,不能排除残余混杂或指征性混杂(药物组间预后因素差异)的可能性。
我们的研究结果表明,与二甲双胍相比,磺脲类在所有研究结局方面的风险状况相对不利。与二甲双胍相比,吡格列酮与全因死亡率降低相关。与罗格列酮相比,吡格列酮也具有良好的风险状况;尽管这需要在其他研究中重复验证,但可能对这类药物的处方有影响。