Pscherer S, Kostev K, Dippel F W, Rathmann W
Department of Diabetology, Klinikum Traunstein, Kliniken Südostbayern AG, Traunstein, Germany.
Epidemiology Department, IMS Health, Frankfurt, Germany.
Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2016 Feb 19;9:17-23. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S101370. eCollection 2016.
Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of fractures. There are a few studies on the effects of diabetes treatment on fracture risk. The aim was to investigate the fracture risk related to various types of insulin therapy in primary care practices.
Data from 105,960 type 2 diabetes patients from 1,072 general and internal medicine practices in Germany were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyzer database; 01/2000-12/2013). Fracture risk of the following therapies was compared using multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, diabetes care, comorbidity, and glycemic control (HbAlc): 1) incident insulin therapy versus oral antidiabetic drugs, 2) basal-supported oral therapy versus supplementary insulin therapy versus conventional insulin therapy, and 3) insulin glargine versus insulin detemir versus NPH insulin.
There was a lower odds of having incident fractures in the oral antidiabetic drug group compared to incident insulin users, although not significant (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval: 0.87; 0.72-1.06). There were increased odds for conventional insulin therapy (OR: 1.59; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.89-2.84) and supplementary insulin therapy (OR: 1.20; 0.63-2.27) compared to basal-supported oral therapy, which was not significant as well. Overall, there was no significant difference in fracture risk for basal insulins (glargine, detemir, NPH insulin). After a treatment duration ≥2 years, insulin glargine showed a lower odds of having ≥1 fracture compared to NPH users (OR: 0.78; 0.65-0.95) (detemir vs NPH insulin: OR: 1.03; 0.79-1.36).
Long-standing therapy with insulin glargine was associated with a lower odds of having any fractures compared to NPH insulin. Further studies are required to investigate whether the lower chance is due to a reduced frequency of hypoglycemia.
2型糖尿病与骨折风险增加相关。关于糖尿病治疗对骨折风险影响的研究较少。本研究旨在探讨在基层医疗实践中,不同类型胰岛素治疗与骨折风险的关系。
回顾性分析了德国1072家普通内科和内科诊所中105960例2型糖尿病患者的数据(疾病分析器数据库;2000年1月至2013年12月)。使用多因素逻辑回归模型比较以下治疗方法的骨折风险,并对年龄、性别、糖尿病护理、合并症和血糖控制(糖化血红蛋白)进行校正:1)起始胰岛素治疗与口服降糖药;2)基础胰岛素联合口服治疗与补充胰岛素治疗与传统胰岛素治疗;3)甘精胰岛素与地特胰岛素与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素。
与起始使用胰岛素的患者相比,口服降糖药组发生新发骨折的几率较低,尽管差异无统计学意义(比值比[OR];95%置信区间:0.87;0.72 - 1.06)。与基础胰岛素联合口服治疗相比,传统胰岛素治疗(OR:1.59;95%置信区间[CI] 0.89 - 2.84)和补充胰岛素治疗(OR:1.20;0.63 - 2.27)的骨折几率增加,差异也无统计学意义。总体而言,基础胰岛素(甘精胰岛素、地特胰岛素、中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素)的骨折风险无显著差异。治疗持续时间≥2年后,与使用中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素的患者相比,使用甘精胰岛素发生≥1次骨折的几率较低(OR:0.78;0.65 - 0.95)(地特胰岛素与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素相比:OR:1.03;0.79 - 1.36)。
与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素相比,长期使用甘精胰岛素发生任何骨折的几率较低。需要进一步研究以调查这种较低几率是否归因于低血糖发生频率降低。