Lancet. 1998 Sep 12;352(9131):837-53.
Improved blood-glucose control decreases the progression of diabetic microvascular disease, but the effect on macrovascular complications is unknown. There is concern that sulphonylureas may increase cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and that high insulin concentrations may enhance atheroma formation. We compared the effects of intensive blood-glucose control with either sulphonylurea or insulin and conventional treatment on the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised controlled trial.
3867 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes, median age 54 years (IQR 48-60 years), who after 3 months' diet treatment had a mean of two fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6.1-15.0 mmol/L were randomly assigned intensive policy with a sulphonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or glipizide) or with insulin, or conventional policy with diet. The aim in the intensive group was FPG less than 6 mmol/L. In the conventional group, the aim was the best achievable FPG with diet alone; drugs were added only if there were hyperglycaemic symptoms or FPG greater than 15 mmol/L. Three aggregate endpoints were used to assess differences between conventional and intensive treatment: any diabetes-related endpoint (sudden death, death from hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, amputation [of at least one digit], vitreous haemorrhage, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, blindness in one eye, or cataract extraction); diabetes-related death (death from myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia, and sudden death); all-cause mortality. Single clinical endpoints and surrogate subclinical endpoints were also assessed. All analyses were by intention to treat and frequency of hypoglycaemia was also analysed by actual therapy.
Over 10 years, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 7.0% (6.2-8.2) in the intensive group compared with 7.9% (6.9-8.8) in the conventional group--an 11% reduction. There was no difference in HbA1c among agents in the intensive group. Compared with the conventional group, the risk in the intensive group was 12% lower (95% CI 1-21, p=0.029) for any diabetes-related endpoint; 10% lower (-11 to 27, p=0.34) for any diabetes-related death; and 6% lower (-10 to 20, p=0.44) for all-cause mortality. Most of the risk reduction in the any diabetes-related aggregate endpoint was due to a 25% risk reduction (7-40, p=0.0099) in microvascular endpoints, including the need for retinal photocoagulation. There was no difference for any of the three aggregate endpoints between the three intensive agents (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin). Patients in the intensive group had more hypoglycaemic episodes than those in the conventional group on both types of analysis (both p<0.0001). The rates of major hypoglycaemic episodes per year were 0.7% with conventional treatment, 1.0% with chlorpropamide, 1.4% with glibenclamide, and 1.8% with insulin. Weight gain was significantly higher in the intensive group (mean 2.9 kg) than in the conventional group (p<0.001), and patients assigned insulin had a greater gain in weight (4.0 kg) than those assigned chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg).
Intensive blood-glucose control by either sulphonylureas or insulin substantially decreases the risk of microvascular complications, but not macrovascular disease, in patients with type 2 diabetes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
改善血糖控制可降低糖尿病微血管病变的进展,但对大血管并发症的影响尚不清楚。有人担心磺脲类药物可能会增加2型糖尿病患者的心血管死亡率,且高胰岛素浓度可能会促进动脉粥样硬化的形成。在一项随机对照试验中,我们比较了强化血糖控制(使用磺脲类药物或胰岛素)与传统治疗对2型糖尿病患者微血管和大血管并发症风险的影响。
3867例新诊断的2型糖尿病患者,中位年龄54岁(四分位间距48 - 60岁),经过3个月的饮食治疗后,空腹血浆葡萄糖(FPG)浓度平均为6.1 - 15.0 mmol/L,被随机分配接受强化治疗方案(使用磺脲类药物(氯磺丙脲、格列本脲或格列吡嗪)或胰岛素)或传统饮食治疗方案。强化治疗组的目标是FPG低于6 mmol/L。在传统治疗组中,目标是仅通过饮食实现最佳的FPG;只有出现高血糖症状或FPG大于15 mmol/L时才添加药物。使用三个综合终点来评估传统治疗和强化治疗之间的差异:任何与糖尿病相关的终点(猝死、高血糖或低血糖导致的死亡、致命或非致命性心肌梗死、心绞痛、心力衰竭、中风、肾衰竭、截肢[至少一个趾]、玻璃体积血、需要光凝治疗的视网膜病变、单眼失明或白内障摘除);与糖尿病相关的死亡(心肌梗死、中风、外周血管疾病、肾病、高血糖或低血糖导致的死亡以及猝死);全因死亡率。还评估了单个临床终点和替代亚临床终点。所有分析均按照意向性分析进行,低血糖发生频率也按照实际治疗情况进行分析。
在10年期间,强化治疗组的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)为7.0%(6.2 - 8.2),而传统治疗组为7.9%(6.9 - 8.8),降低了11%。强化治疗组中各药物之间的HbA1c无差异。与传统治疗组相比,强化治疗组任何与糖尿病相关终点的风险降低了12%(95%可信区间1 - 21,p = 0.029);任何与糖尿病相关死亡的风险降低了10%(-11至27,p = 0.34);全因死亡率降低了6%(-10至20,p = 0.44)。任何与糖尿病相关综合终点的风险降低大部分归因于微血管终点风险降低了25%(7 - 40,p = 0.0099),包括视网膜光凝治疗的需求。三种强化药物(氯磺丙脲、格列本脲或胰岛素)在三个综合终点中的任何一个方面均无差异。在两种分析中,强化治疗组的低血糖发作次数均多于传统治疗组(均p < 0.0001)。传统治疗每年的严重低血糖发作率为0.7%,氯磺丙脲为1.0%,格列本脲为1.4%,胰岛素为1.8%。强化治疗组的体重增加显著高于传统治疗组(平均2.9 kg)(p < 0.001),且分配接受胰岛素治疗的患者体重增加(4.0 kg)大于分配接受氯磺丙脲(2.6 kg)或格列本脲(1.7 kg)的患者。
使用磺脲类药物或胰岛素进行强化血糖控制可显著降低2型糖尿病患者微血管并发症的风险,但对大血管疾病无影响。(摘要截选)