Suppr超能文献

美国 2 型糖尿病患者的三线抗糖尿病治疗强化模式与血糖控制:一项真实世界研究。

Third-Line Antidiabetic Therapy Intensification Patterns and Glycaemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA: A Real-World Study.

机构信息

Melbourne EpiCentre, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

The Royal Melbourne Hospital, 7 East Main Building, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia.

出版信息

Drugs. 2020 Apr;80(5):477-487. doi: 10.1007/s40265-020-01279-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Third-line antidiabetic drug (ADD) intensification patterns and glycemic control post intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have not been thoroughly explored in a real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the patterns and risks of third-line ADD intensification post second-line ADDs and the probability of desirable glucose control over 12 months by third-line ADD classes at the population level.

METHODS

We used the electronic medical records of 255,236 patients with T2DM in the USA initiating a second-line ADD post metformin from January 2013 to evaluate the rates and risks of third-line intensification and the probability of desirable glycemic control with different ADDs after addressing inherent heterogeneity using appropriate methodologies.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 60 years and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8.5% at second-line ADD. Over 209,136 person-years (PY) of follow-up, 40% had initiated a third-line ADD at HbA1c of 8.8%. Patients receiving dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as the second-line ADD had a 7% (95% hazard ratio [HR] confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.10) and 28% (95% HR CI 1.24-1.33) higher adjusted risk of intensifying with a third-line ADD than did those receiving sulfonylureas as the second-line ADD. Those receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) as second-line ADD had a 17% (95% HR CI 0.80-0.87) lower risk. The adjusted probability of reducing HbA1c by ≥ 1% was similar in those receiving third-line sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, GLP-1 RAs, SGLT-2i, and insulin (minimum, maximum 95% CI of probability 0.61, 0.68), whereas those receiving DPP-4i had a significantly lower probability (0.58; 95% CI 0.56-0.59). Similarly, the probability of reducing HbA1c < 7.5% was similar in the sulfonylurea, GLP-1 RA, and SGLT-2i groups (minimum, maximum of 95% CI of probability 0.41, 0.49), whereas those receiving DPP-4i had a significantly lower probability of achieving an HbA1c < 7.5% (0.37; 95% CI 0.36-0.38).

CONCLUSION

This study, based on a large representative cohort of patients with T2DM from the USA, suggests the need for revisiting real-world practices in choosing therapeutic intensification pathways and a more proactive strategy to tackle the persistent risk factor burden in patients with T2DM.

摘要

背景

在真实世界环境中,尚未深入探讨 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的三线降糖药物(ADD)强化模式和强化治疗后的血糖控制情况。

目的

本研究旨在探讨二线 ADD 治疗后三线 ADD 强化的模式和风险,并在考虑固有异质性后使用适当的方法学,从人群水平上评估不同三线 ADD 类别在 12 个月内达到理想血糖控制的概率。

方法

我们使用了美国 255236 例起始二甲双胍治疗后使用二线 ADD 的 T2DM 患者的电子病历,评估了二线 ADD 后三线强化的比率和风险,以及不同 ADD 治疗后达到理想血糖控制的概率。

结果

患者的平均年龄为 60 岁,二线 ADD 时糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)为 8.5%。在超过 209136 人年的随访中,40%的患者在 HbA1c 为 8.8%时开始使用三线 ADD。作为二线 ADD 使用二肽基肽酶-4 抑制剂(DPP-4i)和胰高血糖素样肽-1 受体激动剂(GLP-1 RAs)的患者,与作为二线 ADD 使用磺酰脲类药物的患者相比,三线 ADD 强化的调整后风险分别增加了 7%(95%置信区间[HR] 1.05-1.10)和 28%(95% HR CI 1.24-1.33)。作为二线 ADD 使用钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白-2 抑制剂(SGLT-2i)的患者,三线 ADD 强化的风险降低了 17%(95% HR CI 0.80-0.87)。接受三线磺酰脲类、噻唑烷二酮类、GLP-1 RAs、SGLT-2i 和胰岛素治疗的患者,HbA1c 降低≥1%的调整后概率相似(最小最大值 95% CI 概率 0.61,0.68),而接受 DPP-4i 治疗的患者概率显著较低(0.58;95% CI 0.56-0.59)。同样,HbA1c<7.5%的概率在磺酰脲类、GLP-1 RA 和 SGLT-2i 组相似(最小最大值 95% CI 概率 0.41,0.49),而接受 DPP-4i 治疗的患者达到 HbA1c<7.5%的概率显著较低(0.37;95% CI 0.36-0.38)。

结论

本研究基于美国 2 型糖尿病患者的大型代表性队列,提示有必要重新审视现实世界中选择治疗强化途径的实践,并采取更积极的策略来解决 2 型糖尿病患者持续存在的风险因素负担。

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