Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine, Cloppenburg, Germany.
Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, ZIBMT, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021 Jun;9(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002215.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。