Suppr超能文献

DIVE/DPV 登记研究:2 型糖尿病患者年龄≥75 岁人群中使用人胰岛素类似物的获益与风险。

DIVE/DPV registries: benefits and risks of analog insulin use in individuals 75 years and older with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

机构信息

Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg, Germany.

Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, ZIBMT, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

出版信息

BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021 Jun;9(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002215.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to characterize insulin-treated individuals aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin analogs (BIA) or regular insulins (human insulin (HI)/neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)) and to compare the benefits and risks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The analysis was based on data from the DPV (Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation) and DIVE (DIabetes Versorgungs-Evaluation) registries. To balance for confounders, propensity score matching for age, sex, diabetes duration, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as covariates was performed.

RESULTS

Among 167 300 patients aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 80.3 years), 9601 subjects used insulin regimens with basal insulin (HI/NPH or BIA). Of these 8022 propensity score-matched subjects were identified. The mean diabetes duration was ~12 years and half of the patients were male. At the time of switch, patients provided with BIA experienced more dyslipidemia (89.3% vs 85.9%; p=0.002) and took a greater number of medications (4.3 vs 3.7; p<0.001) and depression was more prevalent (8.4% vs 6.5%; p=0.01). Aggregated to the most actual treatment year, BIA was associated with a higher percentage of patients using basal-supported oral therapy (42.6% vs 14.4%) and intensified conventional insulin therapy (44.3% vs 29.4%) and lower total daily insulin doses (0.24 IU/kg/day vs 0.30 IU/kg/day; p<0.001). The study did not reveal significant differences in efficacy (HbA1c 7.4% vs 7.3%; p=0.06), hospitalizations (0.7 vs 0.8 per patient-year (PY); p=0.15), length of stay (16.3 vs 16.1 days per PY; p=0.53), or rates of severe hypoglycemia (4.07 vs 4.40 per 100 PY; p=0.88), hypoglycemia with coma (3.64 vs 3.26 per 100 PY; p=0.88) and diabetic ketoacidosis (0.01 vs 0.03 per 100 PY; p=0.36).

CONCLUSION

BIA were used in more individually and patient-centered therapy regimens compared with HI/NPH in patients with a mean age of 80 years. Both groups were slightly overtreated with mean HbA1c <7.5%. The risk of severe hypoglycemia was low and independent of insulin type. Further analyses of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes are needed to provide evidence for best practice approaches in this age group.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在通过使用基础胰岛素类似物(BIA)或常规胰岛素(人胰岛素(HI)/中性鱼精蛋白 Hagedorn(NPH))治疗年龄≥75 岁的 2 型糖尿病患者,描述其特征,并比较其获益和风险。

研究设计和方法

该分析基于 DPV(Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation)和 DIVE(DIabetes Versorgungs-Evaluation)登记处的数据。为了平衡混杂因素,采用年龄、性别、糖尿病病程、体重指数和糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)作为协变量的倾向评分匹配进行分析。

结果

在 167300 名年龄≥75 岁的 2 型糖尿病患者(平均年龄 80.3 岁)中,有 9601 名患者使用了包含基础胰岛素(HI/NPH 或 BIA)的胰岛素治疗方案。其中,8022 名患者通过倾向评分匹配。平均糖尿病病程约为 12 年,一半患者为男性。在转换治疗时,接受 BIA 治疗的患者血脂异常更为常见(89.3% vs 85.9%;p=0.002),用药种类更多(4.3 种 vs 3.7 种;p<0.001),且抑郁更为常见(8.4% vs 6.5%;p=0.01)。在汇总至实际治疗的年度中,BIA 治疗组使用基础胰岛素支持的口服治疗方案(42.6% vs 14.4%)和强化常规胰岛素治疗方案(44.3% vs 29.4%)的患者比例更高,且胰岛素总剂量更低(0.24 IU/kg/天 vs 0.30 IU/kg/天;p<0.001)。该研究未发现疗效(HbA1c 7.4% vs 7.3%;p=0.06)、住院率(0.7 次 vs 0.8 次/患者年(PY);p=0.15)、住院时间(16.3 天 vs 16.1 天/ PY;p=0.53)或严重低血糖发生率(4.07 次 vs 4.40 次/100 PY;p=0.88)、低血糖伴昏迷(3.64 次 vs 3.26 次/100 PY;p=0.88)和糖尿病酮症酸中毒(0.01 次 vs 0.03 次/100 PY;p=0.36)存在显著差异。

结论

在平均年龄为 80 岁的患者中,与 HI/NPH 相比,BIA 用于更个体化和以患者为中心的治疗方案。两组患者的平均 HbA1c<7.5%,治疗均略有过度。严重低血糖的风险较低,且与胰岛素类型无关。需要进一步分析老年 2 型糖尿病患者,为该年龄组提供最佳治疗方案的证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e82f/8183199/72d6c4611500/bmjdrc-2021-002215f01.jpg

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