Suppr超能文献

在2型糖尿病患者的回顾性队列研究中,评估方法可显著影响口服降糖药的全因死亡风险。

Evaluation approach can significantly influence oral glucose-lowering drugs total mortality risks in retrospective cohorts of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

作者信息

Khalangot Mykolay, Kovtun Volodymir

机构信息

Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate education, Kiev, Ukraine.

出版信息

Curr Diabetes Rev. 2014;10(5):336-42. doi: 10.2174/1573399810666141021120951.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Retrospective evaluations of mortality risks in cohorts of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), receiving oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) gave conclusions about association between certain OGLDs and mortality that do not exactly agree with each other. Different approaches were used: recording the outcomes depending on the first prescription, later changes were ignored or receiving one of OGLDs according to data of last documented visit before the end of observation period; without change of OGLD during the whole observation; treatment intervals - period from onset of treatment to onset of the next drug treatment, or until outcome. Impact of each study approach was not evaluated yet. We conducted such comparative analysis using the database of Ukrainian Diabetes Register.

METHODS

All-cause mortality in retrospective cohorts of 36 449 type 2 diabetes patients treated with glibenclamide, gliclazide or metformin monotherapy all of which were included at least in one of evaluation models: "first prescription" - 2 862 /257, "last prescription" - 34 818 / 4 224; "unchanged" - 8 786/680 and "treatment intervals" - 13 546/3 142 T2D patients / death cases respectively, were evaluated using Cox regression with gender, age, and diabetes duration adjusting. We compared the mortality risk (Hazard ratios -HRs) associated with Gliclazide or Metformin versus Glibenclamide monotherapy.

RESULTS

Gliclazide or metformin-treated patients demonstrated lesser mortality risk than glibenclamide-treated ones in all four evaluation models, but age and duration stratification can influence this phenomenon in case of "first prescription model". In case of "without change OGLD" model the increase of mortality risk in glibenclamide-treated group is the most evident when comparing to gliclazide-treated, rather than to metformin-treated one. When comparing gliclazide vs metformin mortality risk for this model, gliclazide-treated patients demonstrated lesser mortality risk than metformin-treated ones: gender, age and diabetes duration adjusting HR = 0.51 (0.35-0.72), p<0.001.

CONCLUSION

Different approaches used for mortality analysis in observation studies of T2D patients can present discrepant results.

摘要

背景

对接受口服降糖药(OGLDs)治疗的2型糖尿病(T2D)患者队列的死亡率风险进行回顾性评估,得出了某些OGLDs与死亡率之间关联的结论,但这些结论并不完全一致。使用了不同的方法:根据首次处方记录结果,忽略后来的变化;或者根据观察期结束前最后一次记录就诊的数据接受其中一种OGLD治疗;在整个观察期内OGLD无变化;治疗间隔——从治疗开始到下一次药物治疗开始,或直到出现结果。尚未评估每种研究方法的影响。我们使用乌克兰糖尿病登记数据库进行了此类比较分析。

方法

对36449例接受格列本脲、格列齐特或二甲双胍单药治疗的2型糖尿病患者的回顾性队列中的全因死亡率进行评估,所有患者至少纳入以下一种评估模型:“首次处方”——2862/257例、“最后处方”——34818/4224例;“无变化”——8786/680例,以及“治疗间隔”——13546/3142例T2D患者/死亡病例,使用Cox回归并对性别、年龄和糖尿病病程进行调整。我们比较了与格列齐特或二甲双胍相比,格列本脲单药治疗相关的死亡风险(风险比-HRs)。

结果

在所有四种评估模型中,格列齐特或二甲双胍治疗的患者的死亡风险低于格列本脲治疗的患者,但在“首次处方模型”中,年龄和病程分层可能会影响这一现象。在“OGLD无变化”模型中,与格列齐特治疗组相比,格列本脲治疗组死亡风险的增加最为明显,而不是与二甲双胍治疗组相比。在该模型中比较格列齐特与二甲双胍的死亡风险时,格列齐特治疗的患者的死亡风险低于二甲双胍治疗的患者:性别、年龄和糖尿病病程调整后的HR=0.51(0.35-0.72),p<0.001。

结论

在T2D患者观察性研究中用于死亡率分析的不同方法可能会得出不一致的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验