Sussman Jeremy B, Kent David M, Nelson Jason P, Hayward Rodney A
Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, NCRC, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16/343E, Ann Arbor
Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, 35 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
BMJ. 2015 Feb 19;350:h454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h454.
To determine whether some participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more or less likely to benefit from metformin or a structured lifestyle modification program.
Post hoc analysis of the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized controlled trial.
Ambulatory care patients.
3060 people without diabetes but with evidence of impaired glucose metabolism.
Intervention groups received metformin or a lifestyle modification program with the goals of weight loss and physical activity.
Development of diabetes, stratified by the risk of developing diabetes according to a diabetes risk prediction model.
Of the 3081 participants with impaired glucose metabolism at baseline, 655 (21%) progressed to diabetes over a median 2.8 years' follow-up. The diabetes risk model had good discrimination (C statistic=0.73) and calibration. Although the lifestyle intervention provided a sixfold greater absolute risk reduction in the highest risk quarter than in the lowest risk quarter, patients in the lowest risk quarter still received substantial benefit (three year absolute risk reduction 4.9% v 28.3% in highest risk quarter; numbers needed to treat of 20.4 and 3.5, respectively). The benefit of metformin, however, was seen almost entirely in patients in the top quarter of risk of diabetes. No benefit was seen in the lowest risk quarter. Participants in the highest risk quarter averaged a 21.4% three year absolute risk reduction (number needed to treat 4.6).
Patients at high risk of diabetes have substantial variation in their likelihood of receiving benefit from diabetes prevention treatments. Using this knowledge could decrease overtreatment and make prevention of diabetes far more efficient, effective, and patient centered, provided that decision making is based on an accurate risk prediction tool.
确定糖尿病预防计划中的某些参与者从二甲双胍或结构化生活方式改变计划中获益或多或少的可能性。
对糖尿病预防计划进行事后分析,这是一项随机对照试验。
门诊护理患者。
3060名无糖尿病但有糖代谢受损证据的人。
干预组接受二甲双胍或旨在减重和增加身体活动的生活方式改变计划。
根据糖尿病风险预测模型,按患糖尿病风险分层的糖尿病发生情况。
在基线时糖代谢受损的3081名参与者中,655名(21%)在中位2.8年的随访中进展为糖尿病。糖尿病风险模型具有良好的区分度(C统计量=0.73)和校准度。尽管生活方式干预在最高风险四分位数组比最低风险四分位数组提供了高6倍的绝对风险降低,但最低风险四分位数组的患者仍获得了显著益处(三年绝对风险降低4.9%,而最高风险四分位数组为28.3%;分别为20.4和3.5的需治疗人数)。然而,二甲双胍的益处几乎完全见于糖尿病风险最高四分位数组的患者。最低风险四分位数组未观察到益处。最高风险四分位数组的参与者平均三年绝对风险降低21.4%(需治疗人数4.6)。
糖尿病高风险患者从糖尿病预防治疗中获益的可能性存在很大差异。利用这一知识可以减少过度治疗,使糖尿病预防更高效、有效且以患者为中心,前提是决策基于准确的风险预测工具。