• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

荷兰 2 型糖尿病指南中的结局与最小临床重要差异之间的一致性和医疗保健专业人员的偏好。

Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences.

机构信息

Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2021 May;9(3):e00750. doi: 10.1002/prp2.750.

DOI:10.1002/prp2.750
PMID:33934550
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8244004/
Abstract

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.

摘要

为了评估 2 型糖尿病(T2DM)新药的临床获益,荷兰初级保健 T2DM 指南委员会确定了结局和最小临床重要差异(MCID)的重要性。本研究使用在线问卷调查了医疗保健专业人员对结局重要性的看法以及对 MCID 的偏好。共有 211 名医生、药剂师、执业护士、糖尿病护士、执业护师和医师助理使用 9 分制对死亡率、大血管和微血管并发症、HbA1c、体重、生活质量、(总体)住院和严重及其他低血糖的重要性进行了评估。除了体重和其他低血糖(平均得分 4-6)外,所有结局均被认为是关键的(平均得分 7-9)。根据指南委员会的意见,只有 HbA1c 和住院治疗被认为是重要的(不重要)。根据受访者的其他相关结局为不良事件、使用便利性和成本。HbA1c 的 MCID 中位数为 4mmol/mol(指南:5mmol/mol),体重为 3kg(指南:体重增加 5kg 和减少 2.5kg)。医疗保健专业人员倾向于将死亡率(指南:10%)和大血管并发症(指南:25%)和其他低血糖(指南:25%)的相对风险降低 20%作为 MCID。微血管并发症、住院和严重低血糖的 25%MCID 与指南-MCID 相对应。因此,医疗保健专业人员的偏好与指南委员会的观点相似。然而,医疗保健专业人员对 HbA1c 和住院治疗的重要性以及死亡率和其他低血糖的 MCID 持更为严格的观点。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/694c71026fc5/PRP2-9-e00750-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/e55aa4000e4d/PRP2-9-e00750-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/f73ca15c606a/PRP2-9-e00750-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/694c71026fc5/PRP2-9-e00750-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/e55aa4000e4d/PRP2-9-e00750-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/f73ca15c606a/PRP2-9-e00750-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/044e/8244004/694c71026fc5/PRP2-9-e00750-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences.荷兰 2 型糖尿病指南中的结局与最小临床重要差异之间的一致性和医疗保健专业人员的偏好。
Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2021 May;9(3):e00750. doi: 10.1002/prp2.750.
2
Improving type 2 diabetes mellitus glycaemic outcomes is possible without spending more on medication: Lessons from the UK National Diabetes Audit.改善 2 型糖尿病患者的血糖控制结果无需在药物治疗上花费更多:来自英国国家糖尿病审计的经验教训。
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Jan;20(1):185-194. doi: 10.1111/dom.13067. Epub 2017 Sep 8.
3
Cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, modeling the interaction between hypoglycemia and glycemic control in Switzerland.甘精胰岛素与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病的成本效益:瑞士低血糖与血糖控制相互作用的模型研究
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Mar;49(3):217-30. doi: 10.5414/cpp49217.
4
Newer agents for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation.新型 2 型糖尿病血糖控制药物:系统评价和经济评估。
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(36):1-248. doi: 10.3310/hta14360.
5
Hypoglycaemia in the over 75s: Understanding the predisposing factors in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).75岁以上人群的低血糖:了解2型糖尿病(T2DM)的诱发因素。
Prim Care Diabetes. 2018 Apr;12(2):133-138. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2017.08.002. Epub 2017 Sep 20.
6
Prevalence of hypoglycemia among a sample of sulfonylurea-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Argentina: The real-life effectiveness and care patterns of diabetes management (RECAP-DM) study.阿根廷磺脲类药物治疗的2型糖尿病患者样本中低血糖的患病率:糖尿病管理的真实疗效和护理模式(RECAP-DM)研究
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2018 Dec;65(10):592-602. doi: 10.1016/j.endinu.2018.05.014. Epub 2018 Jul 31.
7
Switching from Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Improves Glycaemic Control and Reduces Hypoglycaemia Risk: Results of a Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Study.由中效鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素转换为甘精胰岛素 300U/ml 可改善血糖控制并降低低血糖风险:一项多中心、前瞻性、观察性研究的结果。
J Diabetes Res. 2020 Apr 8;2020:8751348. doi: 10.1155/2020/8751348. eCollection 2020.
8
The effect of an education programme (MEDIAS 2 BSC) of non-intensive insulin treatment regimens for people with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, multi-centre trial.针对 2 型糖尿病患者的非强化胰岛素治疗方案(MEDIAS 2 BSC)教育计划的效果:一项随机、多中心试验。
Diabet Med. 2017 Aug;34(8):1084-1091. doi: 10.1111/dme.13346. Epub 2017 Apr 2.
9
Improvement of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.改善 2 型糖尿病患者的血糖控制:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Aug 26;31(9):2539-2546. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2021.05.010. Epub 2021 May 24.
10
(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.(超)长效胰岛素类似物用于 1 型糖尿病患者。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 4;3(3):CD013498. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013498.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of Bisoprolol Versus Other Beta-Blockers on Glycemic Control and Metabolic Parameters in Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.比索洛尔与其他β受体阻滞剂对2型糖尿病患者血糖控制和代谢参数的影响:一项回顾性队列研究
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2025 Jul 28. doi: 10.1007/s10557-025-07753-7.
2
Impact of an intervention for osteoarthritis based on exercise and education on metabolic health: a register-based study using the SOAD cohort.基于运动和教育的骨关节炎干预措施对代谢健康的影响:一项使用SOAD队列的基于登记的研究
RMD Open. 2025 Feb 26;11(1):e005133. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-005133.
3
Impact of Melatonin Supplementation on Glycemic Parameters in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.医疗保健专业人员在慢性阻塞性肺疾病新药评估中首选的疗效终点和最小临床重要差异
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Feb 6;10:1519. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01519. eCollection 2019.
2
2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD.2019年欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)与欧洲糖尿病研究协会(EASD)合作制定的糖尿病、糖尿病前期和心血管疾病指南。
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 7;41(2):255-323. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486.
3
补充褪黑素对2型糖尿病患者血糖参数的影响:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Curr Pharm Des. 2025;31(8):645-657. doi: 10.2174/0113816128345623241004080849.
4
Subcutaneously administered tirzepatide vs semaglutide for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.皮下注射替西帕肽与司美格鲁肽治疗 2 型糖尿病成人患者的疗效比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Diabetologia. 2024 Jul;67(7):1206-1222. doi: 10.1007/s00125-024-06144-1. Epub 2024 Apr 13.
5
Comparative cardiovascular benefits of individual SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes and heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.比较 2 型糖尿病和心力衰竭患者中不同 SGLT2 抑制剂的心血管获益:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023 Dec 20;14:1216160. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1216160. eCollection 2023.
6
Non-adherence to non-insulin glucose-lowering drugs: Prevalence, predictors and impact on glycemic control and insulin initiation. A longitudinal cohort study in a large primary care database in Spain.不遵医嘱使用非胰岛素类降糖药物:流行率、预测因素以及对血糖控制和胰岛素起始治疗的影响。一项在西班牙大型初级保健数据库中的纵向队列研究。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2023 Dec;29(1):2268838. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2023.2268838. Epub 2023 Oct 24.
7
10 Years of AMNOG: What is the Willingness-to-Pay for Pharmaceuticals in Germany?10 年 AMNOG:德国对药品的支付意愿如何?
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 Sep;21(5):751-759. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00815-7. Epub 2023 May 30.
8
Psychological Support Strategies for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in a Very Low-Carbohydrate Web-Based Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.基于网络的极低碳水化合物饮食方案中成年2型糖尿病患者的心理支持策略:随机对照试验
JMIR Diabetes. 2023 May 11;8:e44295. doi: 10.2196/44295.
9
Effects of a School-Based Nutrition, Gardening, and Cooking Intervention on Metabolic Parameters in High-risk Youth: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.基于学校的营养、园艺和烹饪干预对高危青少年代谢参数的影响:一项集群随机临床试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jan 3;6(1):e2250375. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50375.
Measuring What Matters in Diabetes.
衡量糖尿病的关键指标
JAMA. 2019 May 21;321(19):1865-1866. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4310.
4
Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?筛选证据——显著性检验存在哪些问题?
Phys Ther. 2001 Aug 1;81(8):1464-1469. doi: 10.1093/ptj/81.8.1464.
5
Is Hemoglobin A1c the Right Outcome for Studies of Diabetes?糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)是糖尿病研究的恰当结局指标吗?
JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317(10):1017-1018. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.0029.
6
Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) used in recent Phase 3 trials for Type 2 Diabetes: A review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials.2型糖尿病近期3期试验中使用的患者报告结局(PROs):对这些PROs评估的概念以及未来试验选择PRO时需考虑的因素的综述
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Jun;116:54-67. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.009. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
7
Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.理解药物偏好,不同视角。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jun;79(6):978-87. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12566.
8
Patient care and population health: goals, roles and costs.患者护理与人群健康:目标、作用及成本
J Public Health Res. 2014 Aug 4;3(2):311. doi: 10.4081/jphr.2014.311. eCollection 2014 Jul 2.
9
Minimum clinically important difference in medical studies.医学研究中的最小临床重要差异
Biometrics. 2015 Mar;71(1):33-41. doi: 10.1111/biom.12251. Epub 2014 Oct 18.
10
Perspectives and experiences of health care professionals and patients regarding treatments for type 2 diabetes.医疗保健专业人员和患者对2型糖尿病治疗的看法与经历。
Can Pharm J (Ott). 2014 Jan;147(1):45-54. doi: 10.1177/1715163513506547.