Simmons Rebecca K, Bruun Niels H, Witte Daniel R, Borch-Johnsen Knut, Jørgensen Marit E, Sandbæk Annelli, Lauritzen Torsten
MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Building 1260, Bartholins Allé 2, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Diabetologia. 2017 Jun;60(6):1016-1021. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4230-6. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Within a trial of intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes, we aimed to assess a potential spillover effect of the trial intervention on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality among people who screened positive on a diabetes risk questionnaire but who were normoglycaemic.
In the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)-Denmark trial, 175 general practices were cluster-randomised into: (1) screening plus routine care of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (control group); or (2) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (intervention group). We identified all individuals who screened positive on a diabetes risk questionnaire in ADDITION-Denmark but were normoglycaemic following biochemical testing for use in this secondary analysis. After a median 8.9 years follow-up, we used data from national registers to compare rates of first CVD events and all-cause mortality in individuals in the routine care group with those in the intensive treatment group.
In total, 21,513 individuals screened positive for high risk of diabetes but were normoglycaemic on biochemical testing in ADDITION-Denmark practices between 2001 and 2006 (10,289 in the routine care group and 11,224 in the intensive treatment group). During 9 years of follow-up, there were 3784 first CVD events and 1748 deaths. The incidence of CVD was lower among the intensive treatment group compared with the routine care group (HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.85, 0.99]). This association was stronger among individuals at highest CVD risk (heart SCORE ≥ 10; HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.75, 0.96]). There was no difference in mortality between the two treatment groups (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.92, 1.14]).
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Training of general practitioners to provide target-driven intensive management of blood glucose levels and other cardiovascular risk factors showed some evidence of a spillover effect on the risk of CVD over a 9 year period among individuals at high risk of diabetes. The effect was particularly pronounced among those at highest risk of CVD. There was no effect on mortality.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549.
目的/假设:在一项针对筛查发现的糖尿病患者强化治疗的试验中,我们旨在评估试验干预措施对糖尿病风险问卷筛查呈阳性但血糖正常的人群发生心血管疾病(CVD)及全因死亡率的潜在溢出效应。
在丹麦初级保健中筛查发现的糖尿病患者强化治疗的英-丹-荷研究(ADDITION)-丹麦试验中,175家普通诊所被整群随机分为:(1)对筛查发现的糖尿病患者进行筛查加常规护理(对照组);或(2)对筛查发现的糖尿病患者进行筛查加强化多因素治疗的培训与支持(干预组)。我们确定了在ADDITION-丹麦试验中糖尿病风险问卷筛查呈阳性但生化检测后血糖正常的所有个体,用于此次二次分析。经过中位8.9年的随访,我们使用国家登记数据比较常规护理组和强化治疗组个体首次发生CVD事件的发生率及全因死亡率。
2001年至2006年期间,在ADDITION-丹麦的诊所中,共有21513名个体糖尿病风险筛查呈阳性但生化检测血糖正常(常规护理组10289名,强化治疗组11224名)。在9年的随访期间,有3784例首次CVD事件和1748例死亡。强化治疗组的CVD发病率低于常规护理组(风险比[HR]0.92[95%置信区间(CI)0.85,0.99])。这种关联在CVD风险最高的个体中更强(心脏SCORE≥10;HR 0.85[95%CI 0.75,0.96])。两个治疗组之间的死亡率没有差异(HR 1.02[95%CI 0.92,1.14])。
结论/解读:对全科医生进行培训,以提供针对目标的血糖水平及其他心血管危险因素的强化管理,显示出在9年期间对糖尿病高风险个体的CVD风险有一定的溢出效应证据。这种效应在CVD风险最高的个体中尤为明显。对死亡率没有影响。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549