Dataset Information

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Regional variation in type 2 diabetes mellitus care may affect outcomes in patients treated with intensive versus standard blood glucose control. We sought to evaluate these differences between North America and the rest of the world.

Methods and results

Databases were searched from their inception through December 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of intensive therapy with standard therapy for macro- and microvascular complications in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The analysis included 34 967 patients from 17 randomized controlled trials (7 in North America and 10 in the rest of the world). There were no significant differences between intensive and standard therapy groups for all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.32). For trials conducted in North America, intensive therapy compared with standard glycemic control resulted in significantly higher all-cause mortality (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.40) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.90) than trials conducted in the rest of the world (all-cause mortality OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; interaction P=0.006; cardiovascular mortality OR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.00; interaction P=0.007). Analysis of individual macro- and microvascular outcomes revealed no significant regional differences; however, the risk of severe hypoglycemia was significantly higher in trials of intensive therapy in North America (OR 3.52, 95% CI 3.07 to 4.03) compared with the rest of the world (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.47; interaction P=0.001).

Conclusion

Randomization to intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients was associated with increases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and severe hypoglycemia in North America compared with the rest of the world. Further investigation into the pathobiology or patient variability underlying these findings is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Sardar P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4599400 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sardar Partha P Udell Jacob A JA Chatterjee Saurav S Bansilal Sameer S Mukherjee Debabrata D Farkouh Michael E ME

Journal of the American Heart Association 20150505 5

<h4>Background</h4>Regional variation in type 2 diabetes mellitus care may affect outcomes in patients treated with intensive versus standard blood glucose control. We sought to evaluate these differences between North America and the rest of the world.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Databases were searched from their inception through December 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of intensive therapy with standard therapy for macro- and microvascular complications in adults with ...[more]

PMID: 25944874

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control.We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure.We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime.In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Project description:BackgroundSubcortical microvascular disease represented by brain white matter hyperintensity on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with functional decline in older people with hypertension. The effects of 2 levels of 24-hour average systolic blood pressure (BP) on mobility, white matter disease progression, and cognitive function over 3 years were studied.MethodsThis trial was a prospective, randomized, blinded end-points study in patients ≥75 years of age with systolic hypertension and magnetic resonance imaging evidence of white matter hyperintensity lesions. Patients were randomized to a 24-hour mean systolic BP of ≤130 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus ≤145 mm Hg (standard treatment) with antihypertensive therapies. Primary study outcomes were changes in mobility (gait speed) and accrual of white matter hyperintensity volume after 3 years. Changes in cognitive function (executive processing) and adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsIn 199 randomized patients, the mean age of the cohort was 80.5 years, and 54% were women; the average 24-hour systolic BP was 149 mm Hg. Goal BPs were achieved after a median treatment period of 3 to 4 months; at that time, the mean 24-hour systolic BP was 127.7 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and 144.0 mm Hg in the standard treatment group for an average difference of 16.3 mm Hg. Changes in gait speed were not different between treatment groups (0.40±2.0 versus 0.42±2.7 s in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively; P=0.91), whereas changes from baseline in white matter hyperintensity volumes were smaller (0.29%) in the intensive treatment group compared with the standard treatment group (0.48%; P=0.03). Cognitive outcomes also were not different between the treatment groups. Major adverse cardiovascular events were higher in the standard treatment group compared with the intensive treatment group (17 versus 4 patients; P=0.01). Falls, with or without injury, and syncope were comparable in the treatment groups.ConclusionsIntensive lowering of ambulatory BP reduction in older patients with hypertension did not result in differences in mobility outcomes but was associated with a reduction in accrual of subcortical white matter disease. Over periods >3 years, a reduction in the accumulation of white matter disease may be a factor in conserving function.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01650402.

Project description:Early gestational diabetes mellitus (eGDM) is diagnosed when fasting plasma glucose before 24 weeks of gestation (WG) is ≥ 5.1 mmol/L, whilst standard GDM is diagnosed between 24 and 28 WG by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). eGDM seems to have worse obstetric outcomes than standard GDM. We compared the rates of postpartum glucose metabolism disorders between women with early versus standard GDM in this prospective study on women with GDM from three university hospitals between 2014 and 2016. Patients were included if they were < 24 WG with at least one risk factor for GDM and excluded if they had type 2 diabetes. Patients were assigned to Group 1 (G1) for eGDM according to IADPSG: fasting blood glucose < 24 WG between 5.1 and 7 mmol/L. Group 2 (G2) consisted of patients presenting a standard GDM at 24-28 WG on OGTT results according to IADPSG: T0 ≥ 5.1 mmol/L or T60 ≥ 10.0 mmol g/L or T120 ≥ 8.5 mmol/L. The primary outcome was postpartum OGTT result. Five hundred patients were analysed, with 273 patients undergoing OGTT at 4-18 weeks postpartum: 192 patients in G1 (early) and 81 in G2 (standard). Patients in G1 experienced more insulin therapy during pregnancy than G2 (52.2% versus 32.5%, p < 0.001), but no patients were taking insulin postpartum in either group. G1 patients experienced less preterm labour (2.6% versus 9.1%, p = 0.043), more induced deliveries (38% versus 25%, p = 0.049) and reduced foetal complications (29.2% versus 42.0%, p = 0.048). There was no significant difference in the rate of postpartum glucose metabolism disorders (type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glycaemia) between groups: 48/192 (25%) in G1 and 17/81 (21%) in G2, p = 0.58. Thus the frequency of early postpartum glucose metabolism disorders is high, without difference between eGDM and standard GDM. This supports measurement of fasting plasma glucose before 24 WG and the threshold of 5.1 mmol/L seems appropriate until verification in future studies.Trial registration: NCT01839448, ClinicalTrials.gov on 22/04/2013.

Project description:IntroductionStudies demonstrate that optimal glycaemic control reduces morbidity from diabetes mellitus but remains elusive in a significant portion of patients. Although research shows that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) improves glycaemic control in selected subsets of patients with diabetes in specialty practices, we found no systematic reviews evaluating the use of CGM/FGM in primary care, where the majority of patients with diabetes are cared for.This systematic review aims to answer the questions: 'compared with usual care of self-monitoring blood glucose and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), does the addition of CGM/FGM use in the primary care of patients with diabetes improve glycaemic control, decrease rates of hypoglycaemia, and improve patient and physician satisfaction?' and if so, 'what subgroups of primary care patients with diabetes are most likely to benefit?'.Methods and analysisAligning with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines, a search will be conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. We will include studies investigating CGM/FGM use and reporting the primary outcome measure of HbA1c and secondary outcome measures of hypoglycaemia, time in range, time below range, time above range and patient/staff satisfaction. We will examine which patient populations appear to benefit from CGM/FGM. Three independent researchers will use the Covidence systematic review software for blinded screening and study selection. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the risk of bias and quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design. Study findings will be publicly available to a wide readership across disciplines and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021229416.

Project description:Pragmatic trials comparing "standard of care" treatments provide comparative effectiveness data to make practice of medicine more evidence-based. With electronic health records, recruiting and conducting such trials can be relatively inexpensive. But some worry that the traditional research ethics framework poses unnecessary obstacles and is not appropriate for evaluating such clinical trials. This concern is based on the view (which we call the "Standard of Care Principle") that such research is similar to usual clinical practice and therefore does not raise significant ethical issues since everyone in the research study will receive an accepted standard of care treatment.A case study of a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (Blood Pressure Medication Timing study) comparing morning versus nighttime dosing of antihypertensive medications. The Blood Pressure Medication Timing study has been proposed as a paradigm example of why the Standard of Care Principle obviates the need for traditional levels of ethical scrutiny and how the current regulatory framework poses unnecessary obstacles to research. We provide an ethical analysis of the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study, drawing on the empirical literature as well as on normative analysis.The Standard of Care Principle is the main ethical rationale given by commentators for asserting that the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study does not require "significant ethical debate" and by investigators for the assertion that the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study is minimal risk and thus eligible for lessened regulatory requirements. However, the Blood Pressure Medication Timing study raises important ethical issues, including whether it is even necessary, given the considerable randomized clinical trial evidence in support of nighttime dosing, a much larger (N?17,000) confirmatory randomized clinical trial already in progress, evidence for safety of nighttime dosing, and the cost-free availability of the intervention. Furthermore, the Standard of Care Principle provides a misleading basis for analyzing the informed consent requirements, especially regarding the requirement to disclose alternative courses of treatment that "might be advantageous to the subject."The Standard of Care Principle is ethically inadequate and misleading even when it is applied to the pragmatic randomized clinical trial proposed as a paradigm case for its application.

Dataset Information

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets