Dataset Information

Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: The safety of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has recently undergone scrutiny. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize the risk of adverse events associated with glucose-lowering therapies in people with T2DM. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database, 2000-2010. PATIENTS: Patients comprised 84 622 primary care patients with T2DM treated with one of five glucose-lowering regimens: metformin monotherapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, insulin monotherapy, metformin plus sulfonylurea combination therapy, and insulin plus metformin combination therapy. There were 105 123 exposure periods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The risk of the first major adverse cardiac event, first cancer, or mortality was measured. Secondary outcomes included these individual constituents and microvascular complications. RESULTS: In the same model, and using metformin monotherapy as the referent, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for the primary end point was significantly increased for sulfonylurea monotherapy (1.436, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.354-1.523), insulin monotherapy (1.808, 95% CI 1.630-2.005), and insulin plus metformin (1.309, 95% CI 1.150-1.491). In glycosylated hemoglobin/morbidity subgroups, patients treated with insulin monotherapy had aHRs for the primary outcome ranging from 1.469 (95% CI 0.978-2.206) to 2.644 (95% CI 1.896-3.687). For all secondary outcomes, insulin monotherapy had increased aHRs: myocardial infarction (1.954, 95% CI 1.479-2.583), major adverse cardiac events (1.736, 95% CI 1.441-2.092), stroke (1.432, 95% CI 1.159-1.771), renal complications (3.504, 95% CI 2.718-4.518), neuropathy (2.146, 95% CI 1.832-2.514), eye complications (1.171, 95% CI 1.057-1.298), cancer (1.437, 95% CI 1.234-1.674), or all-cause mortality (2.197, 95% CI 1.983-2.434). When compared directly, aHRs were higher for insulin monotherapy vs all other regimens for the primary end point and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2DM, exogenous insulin therapy was associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications, cancer, and all-cause mortality. Differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups should be considered when interpreting these results.

SUBMITTER: Currie CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3612791 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.

Currie Craig J CJ Poole Chris D CD Evans Marc M Peters John R JR Morgan Christopher Ll CL

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism 20130131 2

<h4>Context</h4>The safety of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has recently undergone scrutiny.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of the study was to characterize the risk of adverse events associated with glucose-lowering therapies in people with T2DM.<h4>Design and setting</h4>This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database, 2000-2010.<h4>Patients</h4>Patients comprised 84 622 primary care patients with T2DM treated with o ...[more]

PMID: 23372169

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.MethodsData from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.ResultsIn type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsThe rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.Trial registrationSWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).FundingNovo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at risk of long-term vascular complications. In trials, exenatide once weekly (ExQW), a GLP-1R agonist, improved glycemia, weight, blood pressure (BP), and lipids in patients with T2DM. We simulated potential effects of ExQW on vascular complications, survival, and medical costs over 20 years versus standard therapies.Patients and methodsThe Archimedes model was used to assess outcomes for ~25,000 virtual patients with T2DM (NHANES 1999-2006 [metformin ± sulfonylureas, age 57 years, body mass index 33 kg/m(2), weight 94 kg, duration T2DM 9 years, hemoglobin A1c [A1C] 8.1%]). The effects of three treatment strategies were modeled and compared to moderate-adherence insulin therapy: advancement to high-adherence insulin at A1C ≥ 8% (treat to target A1C < 7%) and addition of pioglitazone (PIO) or ExQW from simulation start. ExQW effects on A1C, weight, BP, and lipids were modeled from clinical trial data. Costs, inflated to represent 2010 $US, were derived from Medicare data, Drugstore.com, and publications. As ExQW was investigational, we omitted ExQW, PIO, and insulin pharmacy costs.ResultsBy year 1, ExQW treatment decreased A1C (~1.5%), weight (~2 kg), and systolic BP (~5 mmHg). PIO and high-adherence insulin decreased A1C by ~1%, increased weight, and did not affect systolic BP. After 20 years, A1C was ~7% with all strategies. ExQW decreased rates of cardiovascular and microvascular complications more than PIO or high-adherence insulin versus moderate-adherence insulin. Over 20 years, ExQW treatment resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of ~0.3 years/person and cost savings of $469/life-year versus moderate adherence insulin. For PIO or high-adherence insulin, QALYs were virtually unchanged, and costs/life-year versus moderate-adherence insulin increased by $69 and $87, respectively.ConclusionsThis long-term simulation demonstrated that ExQW treatment may decrease rates of cardiovascular and some microvascular complications of T2DM. Increased QALYs, and decreased costs were also projected.

Project description:ImportanceCardiovascular events and mortality are the principal causes of excess mortality and health care costs for people with type 2 diabetes. No large studies have specifically compared long-acting insulin alone with long-acting plus short-acting insulin with regard to cardiovascular outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare cardiovascular events and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving long-acting insulin who do or do not add short-acting insulin.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study emulated a randomized experiment in which adults with type 2 diabetes who experienced a qualifying glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 6.8% to 8.5% with long-acting insulin were randomized to continuing treatment with long-acting insulin (LA group) or adding short-acting insulin within 1 year of the qualifying HbA1c level (LA plus SA group). Retrospective data in 4 integrated health care delivery systems from the Health Care Systems Research Network from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2013, were used. Analysis used inverse probability weighting estimation with Super Learner for propensity score estimation. Analyses took place from April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.ExposuresLong-acting insulin alone or with added short-acting insulin within 1 year from the qualifying HbA1c level.Main outcomes and measuresMortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.ResultsAmong 57 278 individuals (39 279 with data on cardiovascular mortality) with a mean (SD) age of 60.6 (11.5) years, 53.6% men, 43.5% non-Hispanic White individuals, and 4 years of follow-up (median follow-up of 11 [interquartile range, 5-20] calendar quarters), the LA plus SA group was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with the LA group (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49) and a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). Treatment with long-acting plus short-acting insulin was not associated with increased risks of congestive heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality.Conclusions and relevanceFindings of this retrospective cohort study suggested an increased risk of all-cause mortality and a decreased risk of acute myocardial infarction for the LA plus SA group compared with the LA group. Given the lack of an increase in major cardiovascular events or cardiovascular mortality, the increased all-cause mortality with long-acting plus short-acting insulin may be explained by noncardiovascular events or unmeasured confounding.

Project description:The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare plasma C-peptide presence and levels in people without diabetes (CON) and with Type 1 diabetes and relate C-peptide status to clinical factors. In a subset we evaluated 50 microRNAs (miRs) previously implicated in beta-cell death and associations with clinical status and C-peptide levels. Diabetes age of onset was stratified as adult (≥ 18 y.o) or childhood (< 18 y.o.), and diabetes duration was stratified as ≤ 10 years, 10-20 years and > 20 years. Plasma C-peptide was measured by ultrasensitive ELISA. Plasma miRs were quantified using TaqMan probe-primer mix on an OpenArray platform. C-peptide was detectable in 55.3% of (n = 349) people with diabetes, including 64.1% of adults and 34.0% of youth with diabetes, p < 0.0001 and in all (n = 253) participants without diabetes (CON). C-peptide levels, when detectable, were lower in the individuals with diabetes than in the CON group [median lower quartile (LQ)-upper quartile (UQ)] 5.0 (2.6-28.7) versus 650.9 (401.2-732.4) pmol/L respectively, p < 0.0001 and lower in childhood versus adult-onset diabetes [median (LQ-UQ) 4.2 (2.6-12.2) pmol/L vs. 8.0 (2.3-80.5) pmol/L, p = 0.02, respectively]. In the childhood-onset group more people with longer diabetes duration (> 20 years) had detectable C-peptide (60%) than in those with shorter diabetes duration (39%, p for trend < 0.05). Nine miRs significantly correlated with detectable C-peptide levels in people with diabetes and 16 miRs correlated with C-peptide levels in CON. Our cross-sectional study results are supportive of (a) greater beta-cell function loss in younger onset Type 1 diabetes; (b) persistent insulin secretion in adult-onset diabetes and possibly regenerative secretion in childhood-onset long diabetes duration; and (c) relationships of C-peptide levels with circulating miRs. Confirmatory clinical studies and related basic science studies are merited.

Project description:IntroductionThe primary aim of this analysis was to explore whether glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <7%) and the incidence of hypoglycemia are different between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM)-only or insulin-only regimens.MethodsPhysicians in nine Chinese cities completed surveys (Adelphi Real World Diabetes Disease Specific Programme) from October 2011 to March 2012. Key information collected included patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, HbA1c levels, and hypoglycemia incidence. Patients receiving OAM-only (n = 1077) or insulin-only (n = 292) regimens for ≥6 months who had most recent HbA1c results available and measured within 3 months of survey completion were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia. Primary (multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders) and sensitivity analyses (propensity score matching method) were performed.ResultsA higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group achieved glycemic control than patients in the OAM-only group (41.8% vs 35.9%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P = 0.013) better glycemic control than OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.48 [1.09, 2.01]). A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group experienced hypoglycemia (overall) than patients in the OAM-only group (33.3% vs 14.4%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P < 0.001) increased overall hypoglycemia compared with OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.38 [1.72, 3.29]). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary analysis results.ConclusionsThe results of this analysis provide important real-world information on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM, which may be useful for guiding evidenced-based management. Notably, Chinese patients with T2DM receiving OAM-only had poorer glycemic control compared with those receiving insulin-only therapy, although patients receiving OAM-only were less likely to experience hypoglycemic events.

Dataset Information

Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.

Publications

Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets