Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2012
Lower incidence of recorded cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin aspart vs. those on human regular insulin: observational evidence from general practices.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rathmann W, Kostev K
Аннотация
AIMS: Insulin aspart has a higher ability to treat postprandial glucose than regular human insulin, which may have favourable cardiovascular effects. The aim was to collect and compare the incidence of recorded macro- and microvascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with insulin aspart or regular human insulin in general practices.
METHODS: Computerized data from 3154 aspart and 3154 regular insulin users throughout Germany (Disease Analyzer, January 2000 to July 2011) were analysed after matching for age (60 ± 10 years), sex (men: 57%), health insurance (private: 5.8%) and diabetes treatment period in practice (2.2 ± 2.5 years). Hazard ratios (HR; Cox regression) for macro- or microvascular outcomes (follow-up: 3.5 years) were further adjusted for diabetologist care, practice region, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, co-medication (basal insulin, oral antidiabetics, antihypertensives, lipid-lowering agents and antithrombotic drugs), previous treatment with rapid-acting insulins, hypoglycaemia and the Charlson co-morbidity score. Furthermore, adjustment was carried out for baseline microvascular complications when analysing macrovascular outcomes and vice versa.
RESULTS: Overall, the risk of combined macrovascular outcomes was 15% lower for insulin aspart users (p = 0.01). For insulin aspart there was also a decreased risk incident stroke [HR: 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.74], myocardial infarction (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54-0.88) and peripheral vascular disease (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.93). For microvascular complications (retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy), no significant differences were observed (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87-1.06).
CONCLUSION: Use of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart was associated with a reduced incidence of macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes in general practices. It is important to confirm this finding in a randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Computerized data from 3154 aspart and 3154 regular insulin users throughout Germany (Disease Analyzer, January 2000 to July 2011) were analysed after matching for age (60 ± 10 years), sex (men: 57%), health insurance (private: 5.8%) and diabetes treatment period in practice (2.2 ± 2.5 years). Hazard ratios (HR; Cox regression) for macro- or microvascular outcomes (follow-up: 3.5 years) were further adjusted for diabetologist care, practice region, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, co-medication (basal insulin, oral antidiabetics, antihypertensives, lipid-lowering agents and antithrombotic drugs), previous treatment with rapid-acting insulins, hypoglycaemia and the Charlson co-morbidity score. Furthermore, adjustment was carried out for baseline microvascular complications when analysing macrovascular outcomes and vice versa.
RESULTS: Overall, the risk of combined macrovascular outcomes was 15% lower for insulin aspart users (p = 0.01). For insulin aspart there was also a decreased risk incident stroke [HR: 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.74], myocardial infarction (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54-0.88) and peripheral vascular disease (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.93). For microvascular complications (retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy), no significant differences were observed (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87-1.06).
CONCLUSION: Use of the rapid-acting insulin analogue aspart was associated with a reduced incidence of macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes in general practices. It is important to confirm this finding in a randomized controlled trial.