Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2024
Some patients with type 2 diabetes may benefit from intensive glycaemic and blood pressure control: A post-hoc machine learning analysis of ACCORD trial data.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jiao Tianze, Kianmehr Hamed, Lin Yilu, Li Piaopiao, Singh Ospina Naykky, Ghayee Hans K, Ruzieh Mohammed, Fonseca Vivian, Shi Lizheng, Zhang Ping, Shao Hui
Аннотация
AIM: The action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed a neutral average treatment effect of intensive blood glucose and blood pressure (BP) controls in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Yet, treatment effects across patient subgroups have not been well understood. We aimed to identify patient subgroups that might benefit from intensive glucose or BP controls for preventing MACE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a post-hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, we included 10 251 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We applied causal forest and causal tree models to identify participant characteristics that modify the efficacy of intensive glucose or BP controls from 68 candidate variables (demographics, comorbidities, medications and biomarkers) at the baseline. The exposure was (a) intensive versus standard glucose control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <6.0% vs. 7.0%-7.9%], and (b) intensive versus standard BP control (systolic BP <120 vs. <140 mmHg). The primary outcome was MACE.
RESULTS: Compared with standard glucose control, intensive one reduced MACE in those with baseline HbA1c <8.5% [relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.93] and those with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥106 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99). Intensive BP control reduced MACE in those with normal high-density lipoprotein levels (women >55 mg/dl, men >45 mg/dl; RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.74). Risk reductions were not significant in other patient subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive glucose and BP control and could provide biomarkers for future clinical trials to identify more precise HbA1c and BP treatment goals for individualized medicine.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a post-hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, we included 10 251 individuals with type 2 diabetes. We applied causal forest and causal tree models to identify participant characteristics that modify the efficacy of intensive glucose or BP controls from 68 candidate variables (demographics, comorbidities, medications and biomarkers) at the baseline. The exposure was (a) intensive versus standard glucose control [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <6.0% vs. 7.0%-7.9%], and (b) intensive versus standard BP control (systolic BP <120 vs. <140 mmHg). The primary outcome was MACE.
RESULTS: Compared with standard glucose control, intensive one reduced MACE in those with baseline HbA1c <8.5% [relative risk (RR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.93] and those with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥106 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99). Intensive BP control reduced MACE in those with normal high-density lipoprotein levels (women >55 mg/dl, men >45 mg/dl; RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.74). Risk reductions were not significant in other patient subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive glucose and BP control and could provide biomarkers for future clinical trials to identify more precise HbA1c and BP treatment goals for individualized medicine.