UKPDS 研究结果全解读汇报

合集下载

纪立农教授:对新的2型糖尿病大型临床试验结果的解读和分析

纪立农教授:对新的2型糖尿病大型临床试验结果的解读和分析

纪立农教授:对新的2型糖尿病大型临床试验结果的解读和分析纪立农教授:对新的2型糖尿病大型临床试验结果的解读和分析在11月份举行的第十二届糖尿病年会及第十届亚洲分子糖尿病研讨会上,北京大学人民医院的纪立农教授均作了精彩报告;他不仅非常关注糖尿病领域的前沿进展,同时,也非常关心年轻的内分泌科医生的成长,作为会议现场通讯员,笔者尝试邀请纪教授来丁香园讲座,想不到繁忙的纪教授丝毫没有犹豫,这一次,他将与大家一起解读最近几项大型临床试验的结果。

解读和分析之一问题一、三个新的临床试验的强化血糖控制组的血糖控制目标是否达到预期的目标?回答:均没有达到预期的目标。

ADVANCE,ACCORD和VADT试验中的强化血糖控制组预先设定的HbA1c控制目标分别是≤6.5%,≤6.0%和≤6.0%。

实际上,ADVANCE,ACCORD和VADT试验中强化血糖控制组最终达到的HbA1c控制水平分别为6.5%,6.4%和6.9%。

ADVANCE,ACCORD和VADT试验中强化血糖控制组和标准治疗组之间HbA1c控制水平的差距分别为0.8%,1.1%和1.5%。

但是,因三个临床试验强化血糖控制组和标准治疗组之间HbA1c控制水平间均有显著性的差异,这并不影响对研究假设的验证。

但是,试验中两组间HbA1c控制水平的差距可能会影响对试验终点的验证能力。

理论上来讲,ACCORD和VADT 研究因两组间HbA1c水平的差别较大,其对研究假设的检验效力大于ADVANCE研究。

从ACCORD和VADT试验强化血糖控制组血糖控制的目标均没有达到预期的目标上也可反映出虽然与UKPDs时代相比,控制高血糖的手段增加了许多,但使血糖正常化仍然是一个非常难以实现的目标。

问题二、三个临床试验各组的其他心血管危险因素是否得到了良好的控制?回答:是。

三个临床试验强化血糖控制组和标准治疗组血糖外的其他心血管危险因素如血压、血脂都达到了接近或优于指南推荐的控制水平且在强化血糖控制组和标准治疗组间的各个危险因素的控制水平大致相同,这对减少评价血糖对大血管病变的影响时的混杂因素非常有利。

UKPDS的深刻影响——总结分析

UKPDS的深刻影响——总结分析
报告的相关研究的进一步发展 。UKP S关于血压控制与微血管疾病 关系的研 究 ,与其他关于 肾素 一血 管紧张素阻断剂 D
的研究证据一起 ,对于指南 的制 定和 医疗 经济学分析产生 了重要影 响。UKP S对 于防治指南的发展 、临床教育和 医疗 D 工作者观念的改变具有 的非 同寻常 的影响。而过去十年间 2 型糖尿病 人群健康 改善的不断发展也与 UKP DS的作用 是分
D a eoo i,D a ee ae 和 D a ei Me iie ib tlga ib tsC r i t dcn b c
项研 究的意义 ,如 观察者 的职业 、上市新药 和其 这 篇迷你综述尝试 对 UKP DS中心文章 ( 1 表
他 技术 的发展 、教育 材料 和相 关医疗 条件 的认识 。 和2 )发表 1 0年后 的影响作一个全 球性总结 分析 。
床领域 ( 8 。在 英国国立研究 院所制 定的优秀临床 指南和 国际循证 指南中,UKP S相关文章是主要 的索引文献 。而 6 %) D
无论是作为 中心性研究 结果 还是作为流行病学发现 ,UKP DS所衍生 的 内容始终是教育材料 的主流 ( 在一些国际幻灯示 教材 中占 1 % ~3 %的比例 ) 0 0 。尤其是 以由于 胰岛 D细胞功能进行性下 降而导致 的随着病程 延长血糖 控制恶化为 内容的 幻灯片而被广泛应用 。通过对于血糖控制和血管合 并症之 间的量 效关系的证实 ,UKP DS加强 了糖化血 红蛋 白在临床监 测和控制 目标方面的 中心地位。众所周知 ,尽 管在 以血糖控 制为 中心的研 究中关于 血糖控 制对于 大血 管疾病 的作用 意义 仍然有争议 ,但是 UKP S超重组 中关于大血管疾病 的研究结果使二 甲双胍成为推荐性治疗手段 ,并且推动 了于 2 0 年 D 08

2型糖尿病降糖治疗之心血管结局研究综述 (1)

2型糖尿病降糖治疗之心血管结局研究综述 (1)

2型糖尿病降糖治疗之心血管结局研究综述糖尿病是21世纪威胁人类健康的最具挑战性疾病之一,全球约有4亿2型糖尿病患者。

心血管疾病是糖尿病患者的最主要死因,校正心血管风险因素后,糖尿病患者心血管风险约为非糖尿病患者的2倍,40岁时诊断2型糖尿病患者生存期较非糖尿病患者减少6-7年。

因此,我们需要循证的延缓疾病进展、改善生活质量、延长生存期而不引起有害副作用的治疗策略来更好的管理糖尿病。

但是,降糖本身所带来的心血管风险减少获益尚未阐明,这一点至关重要。

尽管英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(UKPDS)表明增强血糖控制和血压控制减少2型糖尿病患者糖尿病并发症风险,但大多数药物试验纳入人群缺乏普遍性,研究终点主要集中于生物指标而非临床终点,而且持续时间短。

这一状况在美国FDA和欧洲药品管理机构要求药物研究呈现心血管结局数据后得以改善。

自上述要求呈现糖尿病药物心血管安全性数据条例出台后,针对2型糖尿病心血管结局研究的数目有了大幅增长。

但是,大部分研究设计简单,为安慰剂对照非劣性研究,旨在呈现药物短期无心脏毒性作用。

这就意味着相对有效性、利弊随时间延长的平衡性、疗效的异质性以及药物长期副作用等基本问题不能得到解决。

本文主要回顾已发表的研究2型糖尿病降糖药物或策略心血管结局的试验,概述正在进行的研究及其局限性,并猜想未来可能更为有效的研究方向。

已发表的2型糖尿病心血管结局研究1 .University Group Diabetes Programme研究University Group Diabetes Programme研究发表于1970年,是首项2型糖尿病降糖治疗评估心血管结局的随机、多中心有效性研究。

研究随机将200名患者分为可变剂量胰岛素组、标准剂量胰岛素组、甲苯磺丁脲组、苯乙双胍组和安慰剂组,但因四种干预组均增加心血管风险而终止,但该研究效能不足,研究结果一直存在争议。

2. UKPDS研究UKPDS研究10年(中位随访时间)随访结果表明胰岛素或磺酰脲类降糖药强化治疗使糖尿病微血管病变(视网膜病变、玻璃体出血、致命或非致命肾衰竭等)相对风险减少25%,心梗相对风险减少16% (p=0.052,接近有统计学意义)。

影响糖化血红蛋白测定的因素及实验室检测注意事项

影响糖化血红蛋白测定的因素及实验室检测注意事项

影响糖化血红蛋白测定的因素及实验室检测注意事项(张秀明,中山大学附属中山市人民医院检验医学中心主任)糖化血红蛋白A1c(hemoglobin A1c,HbA1c)是评价糖尿病血糖控制水平的首选指标,并且与糖尿病慢性并发症的发生和发展密切相关。

近年来,许多国家糖尿病学会和WHO推荐将其作为糖尿病的首选诊断标准,拓宽了HbA1c的应用范围。

然而在某些特定的情况下,尤其是当病人有血红蛋白变异体存在时常导致HbA1c测定结果的极度异常或与血糖水平不一致,甚至误导临床;而且多种因素可致HbA1c出现假性升高或降低,不能准确反映糖尿病病人血糖控制状况,影响临床诊断和治疗。

本文简要讨论糖化血红蛋白的生物化学特性,重点介绍糖化血红蛋白的测定方法、血红蛋白变异体对HbA1c测定的干扰,以及引起HbA1c 假性升高或降低的因素,并提出实验室检测注意事项。

一、HbA1c的生物化学:成人血红蛋白(hemoglobin,Hb)通常由HbA(97%)、HbA2(2.5%)和HbF(0.5%)组成。

在健康人,几乎94%的HbA是非糖化的血红蛋白即HbA0,而6%的是糖化血红蛋白(glycated hemoglobin,GHb)即HbA1。

HbA1又包括HbA1a、HbA1b 和HbA1c,前二者含量较少约占GHb的1%,HbA1c是主要的糖化血红蛋白,约占GHb的5%。

HbA1a又由HbA1a1和HbA1a2组成,两者分别是血红蛋白β链N-末端与1,6-二磷酸果糖和6-磷酸葡萄糖发生糖基化作用的产物,HbA1b是血红蛋白β链N-末端与丙酮酸的结合物,HbA1c由葡萄糖与血红蛋白β链N-末端的缬氨酸残基缩合而成。

HbA1c的形成主要依赖血糖浓度和红细胞寿命。

全部过程经历两个非酶促反应:第一步是快速反应期,葡萄糖粘附在血红蛋白N-末端的缬氨酸残基上,形成一个不稳定的醛亚胺中间产物即Schiffs碱;第二步是Schiffs碱经历漫长的葡糖胺(Amadori)重排反应形成稳定的酮胺化合物即HbA1c;或逆向转变成葡萄糖和血红蛋白。

老年冠心病合并T2DM患者UKPDS评分和MPV变化与冠状动脉狭窄程度的相关性研究

老年冠心病合并T2DM患者UKPDS评分和MPV变化与冠状动脉狭窄程度的相关性研究

老年冠心病合并T2DM患者UKPDS评分和MPV变化与冠状动脉狭窄程度的相关性研究作者:刘小慧何浪吴研来源:《中国现代医生》2022年第08期[摘要] 目的探讨老年冠心病(CHD)合并2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(UKPDS)评分和平均血小板体积(MPV)变化与冠状动脉狭窄程度的相关性,为临床诊疗提供指导。

方法选择2017年4月至2020年5月在浙江绿城心血管病医院行冠状动脉造影术的136例CHD合并T2DM患者(年龄>60岁)为研究对象。

根据Gensini评分结果将患者分为高分组(Gensini评分≥40分)54例和低分组(Gensini评分<40分)82例。

采用UKPDS评分系统评估患者10年冠心病风险(CHDRISK),分析比较两组患者CHDRISK值和MPV情况及其与冠状动脉狭窄程度的相关性。

结果两组患者的年龄、收缩压、舒张压、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、血清总胆固醇(TC)比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者的吸烟史、糖尿病病程、空腹血糖(FPG)、高密度脂蛋白固醇(HDL-C)、三酰甘油(TG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)比较,差异有统计学意义(P[关键词] CHD;T2DM;UKPDS;MPV;冠状动脉狭窄[中图分类号] R587.2 [文献标识码] B [文章编号] 1673-9701(2022)08-0020-04Correlation of UKPDS score and MPV changes with the degree of coronary artery stenosis in elderly patients with coronary heart disease complicated with T2DMLIU Xiaohui1 HE Lang1 WU Yan21.Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Zhejiang Greentown Cardiovascular Hospital,Hangzhou 310000, China;2.Department of Endocrinology, Zhejiang Greentown Cardiovascular Hospital, Hangzhou 310000, China[Abstract] Objective To investigate the correlation between the changes of the UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) score and mean platelet volume (MPV) with the degree of coronary artery stenosis in elderly patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) complicated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), so as to provide guidance for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Methods A total of 136 patients (> 60 years old) with CHD complicated with T2DM who underwent coronary angiography in Zhejiang Greentown Cardiovascular Hospital from April 2017 to May 2020 were selected as research objects. According to the results of Gensini score, the patients were divided into the high score group (Gensini score ≥40, n=54) and the low score group (Gensini score < 40, n=82). The 10-year coronary heart disease risk (CHDRISK) was evaluated by the UKPDS scoring system. CHDRISK and MPV were analyzed and compared between the two groups, and their correlation with the degree of coronary artery stenosis was analyzed. Results There were no statistically significant differences in age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and serum total cholesterol (TC)between the two groups (P>0.05), but there were statistically significant differences in smoking history, course of diabetes, fasting blood glucose (FPG), high density lipoprotein sterol (HDL-C), triglyceride (TG) and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) between the two groups (P[Key words] Coronary heart disease; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; UK prospective diabetes study; Mean platelet volume; Coronary artery stenosis冠心病(coronary heart disease,CHD)是影响公众健康的一种常见慢性疾病[1-2]。

ADVANCE研究解读

ADVANCE研究解读

Pfizer Internal Use
研究结果

强化治疗组复合终点累计发生率显著降低(与标准组相比,相 对危险下降10%,P=0.013)
标准组 强化组
Pfizer Internal Use
研究结果

强化组微血管事件发生率显著降低 强化组大血管事件发生率未见明显降低
主要微血管事件 (肾脏和眼部病变)
Pfizer Internal Use
ADVANCE研究的几点启示

此研究进一步证实“强化血糖控制方案”的益处

进一步证实UKPDS的研究结论:

强化降糖可以降低微血管事件的发生 磺脲类联合双胍类药物治疗是安全的

进一步证实糖尿病患者全面管理危险因素的重要性

强化降糖进一步降低微血管并发症

强化降压、降低LDL-C降低大血管并发症
12877名2型糖尿病 患者入组 11140名患者随机分组
1737名患者 脱落
5571名患者进入 强化血糖控制组
5569名患者进入 标准血糖控制组
4828名(87%)患者
4741名(85%)患者
随访5年至研究结束
随访5年至研究结束
Pfizer Internal Use
研究设计

强化治疗策略—在强化治疗组将接受:
标准组 强化组
主要大血管事件 (心血管疾病/卒中)
标准组 强化组
Pfizer Internal Use
研究结果

强化血糖控制对全因死亡率无明显影响
标准组 强化组
Pfizer Internal Use
ADVANCE研究的主要结论

强化血糖控制

显著降低糖尿病微血管合并症的发生

浅析ACCORD、ADVANCE、VADT、UKPDS+posttrial研究之后的降糖策略

浅析ACCORD、ADVANCE、VADT、UKPDS+posttrial研究之后的降糖策略

2.1 第1种可能是不同的药物导致不同的结果。 例如:UKPDS研究相同的血糖控制(HbAlc约 8%),二甲双胍和磺脲类药物均能降低总死亡率, 但是二甲双胍明显低于磺脲类药物,而联合应用效 果居中。对于心血管保护方面,虽然二甲双胍能改 善心血管的预后,但联合应用则此种效应未见明显 阳性结果,并且大型的回顾性分析证实了此种结果。 在VADT研究中,以胰岛素为基础药物的治疗方案 是心血管死亡的一个独立预测因素,这可能与胰岛 素能引起更多的低血糖事件从而增加心血管病的风 险有关。但是这种联系是反映与药物有关还是与这 种疾病不同严重程度条件有关,还值得讨论。 2.2第2种可能的解释是低血糖问题。在老年,尤 其是在有心血管病史的老年2型糖尿病患者中,低
多数国家都极为普遍。虽然我国MS发生率相对较
低,但其绝对数仍不容忽视。更重要的是,MS能使 未来患心血管疾病的风险显著升高。为此,改变不
健康的生活方式至关重要;同时,迫切需要寻求防治
MS的有效方案,以提高MS患者的生活质量,并改
善远期预后。
参考文献:
[1] [2]
rL 纠 rL "
列 们
r;L"
引 rL 明 rL m
似rdiov蹴ular disease[J].Circ J,2010,74:456—46I. 缶I'ilov J。lngelsson E。Sundstrom J,et a1.Impact of body m娜 index and tlle metabolic syndrome On the risk 0f cardiovascular
中国拓床医生2010年弟38豢弟6期(忌413)
·专题笔谈·
年后续研究中,强化治疗组的患者持续获益。 2 4个大型研究不同之处

2型糖尿病患者血清胆红素与心血管病风险及颈动脉硬化的相关性分析

2型糖尿病患者血清胆红素与心血管病风险及颈动脉硬化的相关性分析

2型糖尿病患者血清胆红素与心血管病风险及颈动脉硬化的相关性分析吴妍;张爱珍【摘要】目的探讨2型糖尿病患者胆红素水平与英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study,UKPDS)心血管病风险评分及颈动脉硬化之间的相关性.方法回顾性分析525例2型糖尿病患者的临床资料,并用UKPDS评分评估10年心血管病风险,分为低中危组(0%~20%)及高危组(≥20%),按超声结果有无动脉粥样硬化分为2组,比较不同性别的总胆红素水平;分析总胆红素与其他临床指标之间、UKPDS评分与胆红素之间及颈动脉硬化与胆红素之间的相关性.结果男性心血管病高危组较低中危组总胆红素低,颈动脉硬化组较无硬化组总胆红素低,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);总胆红素与年龄(R=-0.153)、糖尿病病程(R=-0.221)、收缩压(R=-0.078)呈负相关(均P<0.05),在调整了相关参数后,总胆红素与10年心血管病风险负相关(β=-0.036,P<0.001),与颈动脉粥样硬化显著负相关(OR=0.683,95%CI:0.492~0.949,P=0.023).结论 2型糖尿病患者总胆红素水平与心血管风险及颈动脉硬化显著负相关,可以作为心血管病风险的预测因子之一.【期刊名称】《健康研究》【年(卷),期】2017(037)006【总页数】4页(P604-607)【关键词】糖尿病;心血管病风险;颈动脉粥样硬化;胆红素【作者】吴妍;张爱珍【作者单位】浙江绿城心血管病医院内分泌科,浙江杭州310012;浙江大学医学院附属第四医院营养科,浙江义乌322000【正文语种】中文【中图分类】R587.1近年来,随着生活水平的提高,人们生活方式的改变,糖尿病的发病率逐年上升,国际糖尿病联盟预测到2030年全球糖尿病人数将达到5亿[1]。

中国糖尿病患病率已达9.7%,糖尿病前期患者人数更高达15.5%[2]。

UKPDS研究原文(UKPDS 34)

UKPDS研究原文(UKPDS 34)

insulin and placebo allocations.7The study design did not allow comparison of phenformin with the sulphonylurea used in the UGDP (tolbutamide). One death from lactic acidosis occurred in the phenformin group. Phenformin was withdrawn from clinical use in many countries, partly because of the UGDP data and partly because of the association with lactic acidosis.8 Metformin is now the only biguanide in general use, since it has a 10–20-fold lower risk of lactic acidosis than phenformin, and is regarded as a safe drug provided it is not used in at-risk patients, such as those in renal failure.9Metformin was included as a randomisation option in overweight patients in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) from 1977 as part of the original protocol in the first 15 centres. The primary aim was to compare conventional treatment (primarily with diet alone) with intensive treatment with metformin,10–12with a secondary aim of comparing the group allocated metformin with overweight patients allocated sulphonylurea or insulin therapies.In 1990, increasing glycaemia despite maximum sulphonylurea therapy was noted. Following a UKPDS protocol amendment, normal-weight and overweight patients allocated sulphonylurea treatment, who had fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 6⋅1–15⋅0 mmol/L but no symptoms on maximum doses, were then assigned either continuing treatment with sulphonylurea alone or addition of metformin to sulphonylurea.We report here on whether addition of metformin reduces the risk of clinical complications of diabetes. MethodsPatientsUKPDS has been described in the accompanying paper.1,10In brief, between 1977 and 1991, general practitioners in 23 centres in the UK referred patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, aged 25–65 years, for possible inclusion in UKPDS. 5102 diabetic patients with FPG above 6⋅0 mmol/L on two mornings were recruited. The patients were advised to follow a diet high in carbohydrates and fibre and low in saturated fats, with energy restriction in overweight patients. After 3 months on diet, 4209 eligible patients with FPG above 6⋅0 mmol/L were randomised by a stratified design: 2022 (48%) were non-overweight patients (<120% ideal bodyweight13) and 2187 (52%) were overweight. Patients were allocated conventional treatment with diet or intensive treatment with sulphonylurea or insulin with metformin as an additional intensive therapy option in overweight patients in the first 15 centres. We report here results for the overweight participants who had FPG between 6·1 and 15·0 mmol/L (n=1704) without symptoms of hyperglycaemia, after diet treatment.This paper reports on two randomised controlled trials in patients in the first 15 centres, in which metformin was a therapeutic option.Trial in overweight, diet-treated patients of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin versus conventional treatmentThe 1704 overweight patients were randomly assigned conventional treatment, primarily with diet (24%), or intensive treatment with chlorpropamide (16%), glibenclamide (16%), insulin (24%), or metformin (20%). This report primarily compares the 411 overweight patients assigned conventional treatment and 342 overweight patients assigned intensive treatment with metformin, as designated in the protocol10 (figure 1). The paper also reports the secondary analysis comparing the outcomes between overweight patients allocated metformin (n=342) with the 951 patients allocated intensive therapy with chlorpropamide (n=265), glibenclamide (n=277), or insulin (n=409).Conventional treatment policyThe 411 overweight patients assigned the conventional approach continued to receive dietary advice at 3-monthlyFigure 1:Trial profile for diet/metformin study in overweight diet-treated patientsclinical visits with the aim of attaining normal bodyweight and FPG to the extent that is feasible in clinical practice. If marked hyperglycaemia developed (defined by the protocol as FPG above 15 mmol/L or symptoms of hyperglycaemia1) patients were secondarily randomised to additional non-intensive pharmacological therapy with the other four treatments (metformin, chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, and insulin) in the same proportions as in the primary randomisations, with the aim of avoiding symptoms and maintaining FPG below 15 mmol/L.1If patients assigned sulphonylurea therapy developed marked hyperglycaemia, metformin was added to their regimen; if marked hyperglycaemia recurred, the allocation was changed to insulin therapy.Intensive treatment policy with metforminThe aim of the intensive approach for glucose control with metformin, sulphonylurea, or insulin therapies, in addition to dietary advice, was to obtain near-normal FPG (ie, <6⋅0 mmol/L). If FPG increased, patients were kept on the allocated monotherapy alone until marked hyperglycaemia developed, so that the clinical effects of each therapy could be assessed.342 overweight patients were assigned intensive control with metformin. Treatment started with one 850 mg tablet per day, then 850 mg twice daily, and then 1700 mg in the morning and 850 mg with the evening meal (maximum dose=2550 mg). If on any dose, symptoms of diarrhoea or nausea occurred, patients were asked to reduce the dose to that which previously did not cause symptoms.When marked hyperglycaemia developed in those allocated metformin, glibenclamide was added with the aim of maintaining FPG below 6⋅0 mmol/L. If marked hyperglycaemia again developed, treatment was changed to insulin, initially ultralente (Ultratard HM, Novo, or Humulin Zn, Lilly) or isophane (NPH) insulin, with the addition of short-acting (regular) insulin, usually soluble insulin before meals when premeal or bedtime blood-glucose concentrations were above 7⋅0 mmol/L. If the glucose control was not satisfactory, other regimens could be introduced (eg, soluble/isophane regimens).Trial in non-overweight and overweight sulphonylurea-treated patients of addition of metformin versus continued sulphonylurea alone1234 patients, both non-overweight and overweight, were assigned to intensive treatment with sulphonylurea in the first 15 centres. Of these, 537 who were treated with maximum doses of sulphonylurea and had FPG of 6·1–15·0 mmol/L without symptoms of hyperglycaemia, were randomly assigned in equal proportions early addition of metformin to the sulphonylurea (n=269) or continued sulphonylurea alone (n=268; figure 2). If those allocated sulphonylurea alone later developed protocol-defined marked hyperglycaemia, metformin was added. If patients with early or later addition of metformin developed protocol-defined marked hyperglycaemia, oral therapy was stopped and changed to insulin therapy. Combined analysis of two randomised controlled trials The unexpected finding of an increased risk of mortality inFigure 2: Trial profile for sulphonylurea-treated patients with randomisation to metforminsulphonylurea-treated patients allocated addition of metformin led us to undertake a further statistical analysis. Following a test for heterogeneity between the two trials described above,15 a combined analysis of addition of metformin in patients on diet therapy and in those on sulphonylurea therapy was done. The datasets were merged by taking time from randomisation to metformin or not, to an event, or to a censor date. A formal meta-analysis16was also done.Epidemiological assessmentWe excluded 623 of the patients (537 in randomised controlled trial in patients on maximum sulphonylurea treatment of early or late addition of metformin, and 86 patients who had insufficient baseline data or were not in the main three ethnic groups). The aim of the epidemiological assessment in 4416 participants was to find out whether the combination of sulphonylurea and metformin was associated with an increase in mortality from diabetes-related causes. 457 patients were treated by sulphonylurea and metformin: 107 patients assigned conventional therapy in the main randomisation who received the combination after recurrent episodes of protocol-defined marked hyperglycaemia; 257 patients assigned sulphonylurea or metformin in the main randomisation, or those with marked hyperglycaemia after the initial 3 months’ period, who had the other therapy added when marked hyperglycaemia developed; and 93 who refused allocated insulin. All these patients were treated by combined therapy because of the progressive hyperglycaemia of type 2 diabetes,11but if marked hyperglycaemia recurred, the treatment of these patients was changed to insulin. The combination of sulphonylurea and metformin was compared with all other therapies in terms of diabetes-related deaths by means of a Cox proportional-hazards model, with the actual therapy as a time-dependent covariate, and allowance for age, sex, ethnic group, and FPG after 3 months’ diet.Clinic visitsPatients were seen every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months or more frequently if required to attain control criteria. Patients attended fasting for plasma glucose and other biochemical measurements, blood pressure and bodyweight were measured, and therapy was adjusted if necessary. Details were recorded of actual therapies, hypoglycaemic episodes, and home blood-glucose monitoring. At each visit, patients were asked whether they had experienced hypoglycaemic symptoms. Physicians recorded hypoglycaemic episodes as minor when the patient was able to treat the symptoms unaided, or major if third-party help or medical intervention was necessary. The number of patients, in an allocation and taking the allocated therapy, who had one or more minor or major hypoglycaemic episodes in a year was recorded, and the mean over 10 years calculated. Hypoglycaemic episodes in each year were analysed both by intention to treat and by actual therapy.Clinical endpoint analysesThe closing date for the study was Sept 30, 1997. Endpoints were aggregated for analysis to keep to a minimum the numbers of statistical tests.12The three predefined primary outcome analyses were the time to the first occurrence of: any diabetes-related clinical 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, hypoglycaemia, or hyperglycaemia, and sudden death); and all-cause mortality. Four additional clinical endpoint aggregates were used to assess the effect of therapies on different types of vascular disease in secondary outcome analyses: myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fataland sudden death); stroke (fatal and non-fatal); amputation (of at least one digit) or death due to peripheral vascular disease (including death from gangrene); and microvascular complications (retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, vitreous haemorrhage, and fatal or non-fatal renal failure). Subclinical, surrogate variables1were assessed every 3 years.BiochemistryMethods have been previously reported.1,17The normal range for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 4·5–6·2%. Microalbuminuria has been defined for this study as urinary albumin concentration above 50 mg/L and clinical grade proteinuria as more than 300 mg/L.AssignmentAll randomisations were done at the level of the individual patient, by means of therapy allocations in sealed opaque envelopes, which were opened in sequence. The numerical sequence of envelopes used, the dates they were opened, and the therapies stipulated were monitored. No placebo was given.Statistical analysisAnalyses were by intention to treat. Life-table analyses were done with log-rank tests and hazard ratios, used to estimate relative risks, were obtained from Cox proportional-hazards models. For the primary and secondary outcome analyses of clinical endpoint aggregates, 95% CIs are quoted. For single endpoints 99% CIs are quoted, to make allowance for potential type 1 errors.1Further details are given in the accompanying paper.1ResultsIntensive blood-glucose control with metformin versus conventional treatment in overweight patientsTable 1 shows the baseline data for overweight patientsFigure 3: Median FPG, median HbA1c, mean change in bodyweight, and median change in fasting plasma insulin in cohorts of patients followed up to 10 years by assigned treatment (shown by continuous lines)Cross-sectional data at each year are shown by individual symbols for all patients assigned regimen.at the time of randomisation to conventional treatmentor intensive treatment with chlorpropamide,glibenclamide, insulin, or metformin. The mean body-mass index for overweight patients with type 2 diabeteswas 31·4 kg/m2(SD 4·6); 99⋅5% of patients had body-mass index greater than 25 kg/m2, and 54⋅0% had body-mass index greater than 30 kg/m2.The median follow-up (to the last known date atwhich vital status was known or to the end of the trial)was 10·7 years. Vital status was not known at the end ofthe trial for 13 (1·8%) patients who had emigrated.A further 43 (2·5%) patients could not be contacted inthe last year of the study for assessment of clinicalendpoints.Figure 3 shows the median FPG and HbA1cin thecohort of 482 patients with data available studied over10 years and cross-sectional data for all those assignedeach therapy. In the metformin group there was adecrease in FPG and HbA1cin the first year, with asubsequent gradual rise in both variables. From 10years, FPG in the metformin group approached that ofthe conventional treatment group. The median HbA1c during the 10 years of follow-up was 7·4% in themetformin group and 8⋅0% in the conventionaltreatment group. The patients assigned intensive controlwith sulphonylurea or insulin had similar HbA1cto themetformin group. The median HbA1cvalues in themetformin group and conventional control group were6·7% and 7·5%, respectively, in the first 5 years offollow-up, 7·9% and 8·5% in the second 5 years, and8·3% and 8·8% in the last 5 years. The cross-sectional data, of all patients at each year, were similar to the cohort data.For the cohorts followed up for 10 years, the change in bodyweight was similar in the metformin and conventional control groups, and less than the increase in bodyweight observed in patients assigned intensive control with sulphonylureas or insulin. There was a decrease in fasting plasma insulin in the patients assigned metformin, which persisted throughout follow-up (figure 3).Of the 4292 person-years of follow-up among patients assigned conventional control, 2395 (56%) were treated by diet. The remaining 44% of person-years required, as per protocol, additional non-intensive pharmacological therapies. Of the 3682 person-years of follow-up among the overweight patients assigned metformin, 3035 (82%) were treated with metformin alone or in combination. The median dose of metformin was 2550 mg/day (IQR 1700–2550). For the conventional control group, there were 3557 (83%) of person-years with crossover to metformin therapy. Figure 4 shows the proportion of patients per year who had a major hypoglycaemic episode according to actual therapy and intention to treat. The rate of any hypoglycaemic episodes was higher in patients taking metformin as allocated than in those on diet alone but lower than the rates in those taking sulphonylureas as allocated. The rate of hypoglycaemic episodes increased over time among patients treated with insulin, as higher insulin doses were required, and decreased among those on sulphonylurea therapy, as glucose concentrationsFigure 4:Proportion of patients who reported one or more episodes of major hypoglycaemia or any hypoglycaemia per year, assessed by actual therapy and by allocation (intention to treat)Numbers of patients studied at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years in actual therapy analysis=168, 60, and 6 for conventional group; 220, 101, and 6 for metformin group; 235, 166, and 26 for insulin group; 148, 60, and 5 for chlorpropamide group; and 161, 71, and 6 for glibenclamide group.Aggregate and single endpoints (diet vs metformin study)Patients assigned intensive blood-glucose control with metformin had a 32% lower risk (p=0·0023) of developing any diabetes-related endpoint than those allocated conventional blood-glucose control (figures 5and 6). These endpoints included macrovascular and microvascular complications and represented the effect of intensive policy with metformin on complication-free survival. The group assigned metformin had a significantly greater risk reduction than those assigned intensive therapy with sulphonylurea or insulin (p=0·0034).The metformin group had a lower risk of diabetes-related death than the conventional treatment group (figures 5 and 6), with no significant difference between the metformin group and those assigned therapy with sulphonylurea or insulin. There were no deaths from lactic acidosis.Cardiovascular disease accounted for 62% of the total mortality in the overweight patients in the conventional treatment group. The metformin group had a 36%lower risk (p=0·011) of all-cause mortality than the conventional group (figure 6). There was a greater risk reduction than in the groups assigned intensive therapy with sulphonylurea or insulin (p=0·021). The metformin group had a 39% lower risk (p=0·010) of myocardial infarction than the conventional treatment group, but did not differ from the other intensive treatment group (figure 6). There were no significant differences between the metformin group and the conventional group in the other aggregate endpoints.For all macrovascular diseases together (myocardial infarction, sudden death, angina, stroke, and peripheral disease), the metformin group had a 30% (5–48,p=0·020) lower risk than the conventional treatment group but did not differ significantly from the other intensive groups.Data for the single endpoints are shown in figures 7and 8. There was no difference in the rate of death due to non-diabetes-related endpoints (accidents, cancer,other specified causes, or unknown causes).Surrogate endpoints—The metformin group had a lower rate of progression to retinopathy than the conventional group, of borderline significance (p =0·044), at 9 years; there was no difference at 12years. The result was similar to that in the other intensive therapy group. The proportion of patients with urine albumin above 50 mg/L did not differ significantly between the intensive treatment, metformin, and conventional groups (24%, 23%, and 23% respectively).There was no difference between the treatment groups in any of the surrogate indices of macrovascular disease.Addition of metformin in patients receiving sulphonylureaTable 2 shows the demographic data for the patients whose response to maximum sulphonylurea treatment was not adequate (FPG 6·1–15·0 mmol/L) and who were assigned continuing intensive policy with sulphonylurea alone or with early addition of metformin. The mean body-mass index of normal and overweight patients in this study was 29·6 kg/m 2(SD 5·5); 17% had body-mass index below 25 kg/m 2and 39% had values above 30 kg/m 2.Figure 5:Kaplan-Meier plots in diet/metformin study for any diabetes-related clinical endpoint and diabetes-related deathIntensive, in this figure, indicates chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, and insulin groups. Similar plots of data for sulphonylurea/metformin study are superimposed showing relative time of commencement.increased. Over 10 years of follow-up among patients taking therapy as allocated, the proportions of patients per year who had one or more major hypoglycaemic attacks in the conventional, chlorpropamide,glibenclamide, insulin, and metformin groups were 0·7%, 0·6%, 2·5%, 0·3%, and 0% respectively; for any hypoglycaemic episode the corresponding proportions were 0·9%, 12·1%, 17·5%, 34·0%, and 4·2%.Among all patients assigned treatments (intention-to-treat analyses), major hypoglycaemic episodes occurred in 0·7%, 1·2%, 1·0%, 2·0%, and 0⋅6%,respectively, of the conventional, chlorpropamide,glibenclamide, insulin, and metformin groups, and any hypoglycaemic episodes in 7·9%, 15·2%, 20·5%, 25·5%,and 8·3%, respectively. Hypoglycaemic episodes in patients on diet therapy were reactive hypoglycaemic attacks, either after meals or, in some patients, after termination of glucose infusions while in hospital (eg,postoperatively).The median duration from the initial randomisation to subsequent randomisation of addition or no addition of metformin was 7·1 years. The median follow-up after randomisation was 6·6 years. Vital status was not known in ten (2%) patients who had emigrated and a further five (1%) who could not be contacted.Figure 9 shows the median FPG and HbA1cin the cohorts studied for 4 years after second randomisation to addition or no addition of metformin therapy compared with data for all the overweight patients in the comparison of intensive control with metformin and conventional control. There was a decrease in FPG in patients on sulphonylurea therapy who were assigned addition of metformin, whereas FPG concentrations in those on sulphonylurea therapy alone approached those of overweight patients in the conventional treatment group. HbA1cvalues in patients with addition of metformin decreased initially but approached those of the patients remaining on sulphonylurea alone after 3years. The median HbA1cover 4 years in the cohort with addition of metformin was 7·7% compared with 8·2% in those on sulphonylurea alone. There were no significant differences in bodyweight or plasma insulin between the groups allocated addition of metformin or continued sulphonylurea therapy alone.The patients assigned addition of metformin took this drug for 62% of their person-years of follow-up. For those randomly assigned continuing sulphonylurea alone, there were 75% of person-years without metformin therapy.Aggregate and single endpoints (addition of metformin study)Figure 10 shows the aggregates of endpoint data and figure 11 the single endpoint data.The addition of metformin to sulphonylurea was associated with a 96% increased (p=0·039) risk of diabetes-related death. Addition of metformin toFigure 6:Incidence of clinical endpoints among patients assigned intensive control with metformin (n=342), intensive control with chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin (intensive; n=951), or conventional control (n=411)Relative risk (RR) is for metformin or intensive group compared with conventional group.Figure 7:Kaplan-Meier plots in diet/metformin study for microvascular disease (renal failure or death from renal failure, retinopathy requiring photocoagulation, or vitreous haemorrhage), myocardial infarction (non-fatal and fatal, including sudden death), stroke (non-fatal and fatal) and cataract extractionSimilar plots of data for sulphonylurea/metformin study are superimposed showing relative time of commencement.sulphonylurea therapy also increased the risk of death from any cause (60% increase, p=0·041). There were no significant differences between the groups for the other aggregate endpoints. In a subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference between patients allocated metformin in addition to chlorpropamide or glibenclamide (data not shown).The data for the single endpoints are shown in figure 11.Combined analysis of both trialsHeterogeneity tests confirmed the different outcomes between the two trials for any diabetes-related endpoint (p=0·034), diabetes-related death (p=0·00256), and all-cause mortality (p=0·0173), with a non-significant trend for myocardial infarction (p=0·068). Figure 10 shows the results for the two trials combined, with a 12% reduced risk for any diabetes-related endpoint (p=0·033). A formal meta-analysis gave similar results for diabetes-related endpoints (observed minus expected 22·7, variance 104·9, p=0·026) and for myocardial infarction (observed minus expected 12·2, variance 43·9, p=0·065).Epidemiological analysisThe 4417 patients had 45 527 person-years of follow-up; 5181 (11%) of these person-years were treated with sulphonylurea plus metformin therapy. 39 (8%) of the 490 diabetes-related deaths occurred while patients were receiving sulphonylurea plus metformin therapy. A Cox proportional-hazards model, with adjustment for age, sex, ethnic group, and FPG after 3 months’ diet,Figure 8:Incidence of single endpoints in diet vs metformin study Relative risk (RR) is for comparison with conventional control.with current therapies as a time-dependent variable, showed a non-significant risk reduction in diabetes-related death for sulphonylurea plus metformin compared with all other treatments of 5% (95%CI -33 to 32, p=0·78).DiscussionThe main trial reported in this paper evaluated the effect of metformin in diet-treated overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. The study design parallels that in the accompanying paper,1comparing conventional blood-glucose control primarily with diet alone and intensive treatment with sulphonylurea or insulin. The data shown here suggest that metformin therapy in diet-treated overweight patients reduced the risk for any diabetes-related endpoint, diabetes-related death, and all-cause mortality. These possible benefits were not seen in the second trial reported here, which suggests an increased risk for diabetes-related deaths and all-cause mortality when metformin is given in addition to sulphonylurea therapy in non-overweight and overweight patients. Because the difference in the effect of metformin between diet-treated and sulphonylurea-treated patients could be extremes of the play of chance, a combined analysis of all the data was undertaken. This showed that addition of metformin had a comparable effect to that seen with intensive therapy with sulphonylurea or insulin reported in the accompanying paper1with a net reduction of 19% in any diabetes-related endpoint (p=0·033).The trend to a reduced risk for microvascular endpoints with metformin therapy was comparable toFigure 9: Median FPG and median HbA1cin cohorts of patients followed to 10 years from primary randomisation in diet vs metformin study, and cohorts of patients followed to 4 years from second randomisation to sulphonylurea alone or sulphonylurea plus metformin in sulphonylurea vsmetformin studyFigure 10: Incidence of clinical endpoints in sulphonylurea vs metformin study and diet vs metformin studyRelative risk (RR) is for comparison with conventional or sulphonylurea alone. Results of a combined analysis of these two studies shown also.ARTICLESthat reported in the accompanying paper for intensive glucose control1but did not achieve statistical significance.Clinical use of metformin in overweight patientsIn diet-treated overweight patients metformin similarly improved HbA1clevels as with sulphonylurea and insulin therapy but did not induce weight gain and was associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia. Given the equivalent HbA1clevels obtained, the possible additional benefit of metformin observed in overweight diet-treated patients, of a reduced risk for any diabetes-related endpoint, all mortality, and stroke is not explicable on the basis of glycaemic control. The improvements in the predominantly cardiovascular outcomes seen with metformin may be due to the decrease in PAI-1 that accompanies the metformin-induced increase in insulin sensitivity.3PAI-1 can inhibit fibrinolysis; thus decrease in PAI-1 could lessen the likelihood of extension of a thrombolysis. In addition, metformin lowers systemic methylglyoxal concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes,18which suggests that it may have an aminoguanidine-like action. However, these postulated mechanisms may not be relevant since, in the combined analysis, the effect of metformin on cardiovascular outcomes was not substantiated.Clinical use of metformin in patients already treated with sulphonylureaWhen metformin was prescribed in the trial in both non-overweight and overweight patients already treated with sulphonylurea there was a significant increase in risk of diabetes-related death and all-cause mortality rather than a beneficial effect on the primary outcome. The different outcomes seen in these two trials may be explained by differences in the patients studied. The sulphonylurea-treated patients were on average 5 years older; more hyperglycaemic (baseline median FPG 9·1 vs8·1 mmol/L); less overweight; and followed up on average for 5 years less. Secondly, it is important to note that the differences in outcome relate to a relatively small number of endpoints. The epidemiological analysis did not corroborate an association of diabetes-related deaths with combined sulphonylurea and metformin therapy although the CIs were wide.The UKPDS studied metformin primarily in obese patients, since when the study started (1970s), metformin was generally prescribed only in such patients. Obesity is common among patients with type 2 diabetes.19At entry to UKPDS, body-mass index was above 25 kg/m2in 75% of patients and above 30 kg/m2 in 35%.Since metformin seems to give risk reduction of diabetes-related endpoints in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes, does not induce weight gain, and is associated with fewer hypoglycaemic attacks than sulphonylurea or insulin therapy,10it could be chosen as the first-line pharmacological therapy in such patients. Although these findings may not apply to non-overweight patients, metformin seems to lower glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of the degree of obesity.1ConclusionThe addition of metformin in patients already treated with sulphonylureas requires further study. On balance, metformin treatment appears to be advantageous as a first-line pharmacological therapy in diet-treated overweight patients with type 2 diabetes.UKPDS Study OrganisationParticipating centres—Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford; Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen; Birmingham General Hospital; St George’s Hospital, London; Hammersmith Hospital, London; Belfast City Hospital; North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke-on-Trent; Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast; St Helier Hospital, Carshalton; Whittington Hospital, London; Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, Norwich; Lister Hospital, Stevenage; Ipswich Hospital; Ninewells Hospital, Dundee; Northampton Hospital; Torbay Hospital; Peterborough General Hospital; Scarborough Hospital; Derbyshire Royal Infirmary; Manchester Royal Infirmary;Figure 11:Incidence of single endpoints in sulphonylurea vs metformin study Relative risk (RR) is for sulphonylurea plus metformin vs sulphonylurea alone.。

UKPDS 研究结果全解读

UKPDS 研究结果全解读

郭艺芳教授深度剖析:您完全了解UKPDS 研究吗?2016-03-05 07:35来源:丁香园作者:郭艺芳英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(UKPDS)是人类抗争糖尿病征程中的一座丰碑,为我们认识与防治糖尿病及其并发症提供了大量重要信息。

就其科学意义而言,过去没有、将来也很难有其他研究与之抗衡。

然而近20 余年来,很少有人关注该研究的全貌,许多医生认为UKPDS 研究只是证实降糖获益的一项随机化临床试验而已。

实际情况并非如此,UKPDS 系列研究包含着非常丰富的内容。

全面了解UKPDS 研究内容,有助于我们正确认识降糖治疗对于2 型糖尿病患者微血管和大血管合并症发病风险的影响。

本文简单归纳其中有代表性的部分研究内容,供参阅。

1. UKPDS 7(1990 年)以3044 例新诊断糖尿病患者为对象,论证了控制热量摄入与减轻体重对于降低空腹血糖的重要性。

2. UKPDS 9(1993 年)以672 例新诊断2 型糖尿病患者为对象,探讨了N- 乙酰葡糖胺酶、尿蛋白排泄率与空腹血糖之间的关系。

3. UKPDS 10(1993 年)以585 例新诊断2 型糖尿病患者为对象,探讨了饮食干预对尿蛋白排泄率的影响及其与高血压、高血糖和高甘油三酯血症的关系。

4. UKPDS 11(1994 年)以507 例新诊断2 型糖尿病患者为对象,研究了受试者生化危险因素(胰岛素、甘油三酯、总胆固醇、HDL- 胆固醇、LDL- 胆固醇、尿蛋白、N- 乙酰葡糖胺酶、C 肽等)的分布特点。

5. UKPDS 13(1995 年)采取多中心随机化对照试验设计,共纳入2520 例新诊断2 型糖尿病患者,比较单纯饮食控制以及在控制饮食基础上分别加用氯磺丙脲、格列本脲、胰岛素或二甲双胍(肥胖患者)对空腹血糖的影响。

结果显示各种药物的降糖效果相似。

6. UKPDS 14(1995 年)研究发现2 型糖尿病患者血管紧张素转换酶基因多态性等位基因缺失与心肌梗死的发生密切相关。

母义明从大型RCT看降糖药物对大血管病变的多种影响

母义明从大型RCT看降糖药物对大血管病变的多种影响

母义明从大型RCT看降糖药物对大血管病变的多种影响“心脑血管医生不要指望降糖药能改善心脑血管病变,只要能达到降糖的效果就可以了,只要不影响心脑大血管病变就不错了。

这给大家提示:现在和未来所用的降糖药到底对心血管有没有好处?”在日前召开的2015年天坛脑血管病论坛上,中华医学会内分泌学分会候任主任委员、中国人民解放军总医院内分泌科主任母义明开宗明义地表示。

母义明教授首先介绍了心脑血管方面的一些研究现状。

越来越多的流行病学和循证医学证据都证明,在糖尿病和糖尿病前期,大血管病变已经存在,且是导致心脑血管大血管病变的因素,而糖尿病导致的脑血管病变比心血管病变要多。

援引中国医学科学院阜外心血管病医院内分泌与心血管病诊治中心主任李光伟教授等发表在2015年4月《糖尿病医疗》(Diabetes Care)上的研究结果,母义明教授提示说,“大庆IGT和糖尿病研究”显示,糖尿病大大增加中国成人死亡风险,且大约一半的CVD死亡由卒中所致。

“大庆IGT和糖尿病研究”项目研究比较了690名新诊断糖尿病患者和519名糖耐量正常人群的死亡率和死亡原因,发现新诊断糖尿病患者的全因死亡率是糖耐量正常者的3倍。

1986年,我国糖尿病的患病率还不足1%,大庆的糖尿病患病率攀升至1.18%。

因为石油的勘探和开发,大庆人比国内其他地方生活更富裕,当时全国很多地方一家人每天吃一个苹果都很不容易的时候,大庆人就有一筐筐苹果往家里拿。

在大庆开展的生活方式的转变对糖尿病前期的患者是不是转变为糖尿病的调查发现,青年2型糖尿病患者的血糖水平如果没有得到很好的控制,那么在10年、20年之后,是血糖控制好的糖尿病患者群的几倍。

始于1986年的大庆糖尿病预防研究(下简称“大庆研究”)虽然样本量不大,只随机选择了两三百例患者入组,进行中等强度生活方式干预来预防糖尿病的长期随访研究。

然而不可否认的是,大庆研究作为全世界最早的一项以生活方式干预对糖尿病影响的随机分组研究,与芬兰糖尿病预防研究(DPS)和美国糖尿病预防计划(DPP)共同被誉为全球范围内2型糖尿病一级预防的里程碑式研究。

糖尿病合并高血压

糖尿病合并高血压



心 血 管 件 相 对 危 险 性
非糖尿病正常 血压患者危险性
糖尿病患者危险性 增加2倍
糖尿病高血压患者危险性增加为4倍

0 1 2 3 4 The Hypertension in Diabetes Study Group. J. Hypertens.. 1993; 11:319-325
血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(一 )

作用机理:能有效的降低肾小球内高压
—降低系统高血压→降低球内高压 (间 接作用)



—扩张出球小动脉>扩张入球小动
→降低球内高压(直接作用)
血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(二 )

作用机理:改善肾小球滤过膜选择通透 性
—AII能改变肾小球滤过膜孔径屏障, 增加大孔物质通透性
CCB有效减少糖尿病高血压 患者尿蛋白排泄

减少糖尿病高血压患者尿白蛋白排泄
﹡ ﹡
27µm/min 38µm/min






络活喜
西拉普利


与基线相比P<0.05,两治疗组间无差异,在3年治疗中,44名糖 尿 病高压患者随机给予络活喜(mg/天)或西拉普利(2.5mg/天) 参考文献:Velussi M et al. Diabetes,1996,45:216-222

治疗方法:

饮食控制


运动疗法
药物治疗
对各种抗高血压药物之评价

JNC Ⅶ 认为有糖尿病时可以选用

利尿剂 ,BB,ACEI,ARB,CCB
糖尿病高血压选择降压药物的原 则


UKHDS研究课件.ppt

UKHDS研究课件.ppt
• 29% of patients in group assigned to tight control required three or more antihypertensive treatments to maintain BP at target levels
• No significant difference in cumulative incidence of hypoglycemia in groups assigned to tight (6.1%) and less tight (4.4%) BP control
UKHDS (UKPDS): UK Hypertension in Diabetes Study
Purpose To determine whether tight control of blood pressure (aiming for BP <150/85 mmHg) reduces/prevents complications and reduces mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes
Follow up and primary endpoint Mean follow up 8.4 years. Primary endpoints morbidity and mortality related to diabetes and all-cause mortality
Treatment Tight control of BP with ACE inhibitor (captopril) or beta-blocker (atenolol) aiming for BP <150/85 mmHg, or less tight control aiming for BP <180/105 mmHg. Other agents added if control criteria not met (frusemide, nifedipine, methyldopa and prazosin)

国家九五攻关项目课题.

国家九五攻关项目课题.

• 在国家八.五和九.五心血管病攻关项 目中,流行病学研究几乎清一色 都是人群防治研究。这一阶段,从防 治策略的选择和防治措施都有了长 足的发展。以社区为基础的综合防 治更显示了其生命力。
• 高血压人群防治的序幕始于1949年
国际上 著名的Framingham Heart Study,清楚地确立了冠心病危险 因子的概念,并把高血压和高胆固 醇血症指定为心血管疾病流行的两 大病因。
>17
中国高血压指南的亮点
1. 严格控制血压 2. 控制危险因素
国家九五攻关项目课题
原发性高血压的社区综合防治
项目编号:96—906—02—05 承担单位:北京大学公共卫生学院 协作单位:上海市南市区卫生局 北京市房山区卫生局 北京大学人民医院
原发性高血压的社区综合防治
1. 一般人群的健康教育
有关钙拮抗剂的重要临床试验 -高血压患者
• Syst-Eur • Syst-China • STONE • HOT • STOP-2 • INSIGHT • NORDIL
1999年WHO/ISH高血压治疗指 南
ACEI是一种能安全有效地降低血压,
尤其能有效降低心力衰竭的死亡率和
病残率,并能有效延缓糖尿病患者肾 脏病变进展的一线药物
105 195 335 + + +
冠心病相对危险性计算(男)
(Framingham研究的新模式)Am Heart J 2000; 139: 272
年龄
35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74
分数
0 1 3 4 6 7 9 10
糖尿病
No=0 Yes=3
ù Ï » ß Ê Õ Ë õ Ñ ¹

捷诺达,强强联合卓越降糖

捷诺达,强强联合卓越降糖
▪ 两药联合不增加体重
▪ 两药联合低血糖发生风险低
Adapted from Williams-Herman et al, Poster presentation IDF 19th World Diabetes Congress, South Africa, 2006; Nauck MA, et al
UKPDS:血糖随着单药治疗时间延长而逐渐恶化
单药治疗:胰岛素、磺脲类或二甲双胍 9
8
平均 HbA1c (%)
7
6
0 0
3
6
随机化后时间(年)
传统治疗 (n=200)
氯磺丙脲 (n=129) 格列苯脲 (n=149) 二甲双胍 (n=181) 胰岛素 (n=199)
9
新诊断的超重2型糖尿病患者.
传统治疗 = 饮食治疗; UKPDS = UK Prospective Diabetes Study
胰高糖素
从α 细胞(GLP-1) 葡萄糖依赖性
↑胰岛素 ↓胰高糖素 减少肝糖输出
DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4
Adapted from Brubaker PL, Drucker DJ Endocrinology 2004;145:2653–2659; Zander M et al Lancet 2002;359:824–830; Ahrén B Curr Diab Rep 2003;3:365–372; Buse JB et al. In Williams Textbook of
16 现在是16页\一共有53页\编辑于星期五
DPP-4 抑制剂和二甲双胍的联合治疗 机制互补,较少副反应
通过肠促胰岛激素作用增加胰岛素分 泌
改善胰岛素抵抗

UKPDS概述

UKPDS概述

•UKPDS(U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study)研究英国糖尿病前瞻性研究于1977-1991年,在英国的23个中心,共有5102例新确诊的2型糖尿病患者参加了该项研究,以便确定①药物强化治疗降低血糖在临床上是否有益即能否减少心血管和微血管并发症②各种磺脲类药物、双胍类药物(二甲双胍) 或胰岛素应用是否具有特殊的治疗利弊。

另外,为了确定降压治疗的优点及使用血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂(卡托普利)或β受体阻断剂(阿特洛尔)是否能有特殊的治疗优点或缺点,将患高血压的2型糖尿病患者随机分成“严格”控制和“不太严格”控制血压组。

UKPDS得出以下重要结果和结论:1:ukpds的结果证实:与常规治疗组7.9%的HbA1c中值相比,HbA1c中值可达7.0%的强化治疗,能使2型糖尿病的视网膜病变、肾脏病变及可能的神经病变通过降低血糖而有所改善, 微血管并发症的总发生率降低25%。

2:这些研究结果进一步证实了高血糖是这些并发症的病因或主要的因素。

UKPDS 资料的流行病学分析表明:发生微血管并发症的危险性与血糖过高之间持续相关,即HbA1c每下降1个百分点(例如9%降至8%),并发症就减少35%。

3:研究结果证明:只要HbA1c低于8.0%, 即使血糖仍在高血糖范围,发生并发症的危险性仍显著降低。

但却没有证据表明血糖高于正常水平(即HbA1c>6.2%时)发生微血管和心血管并发症的血糖阈值。

4:这些研究结果肯定了以前的结论,根据观察研究、病理学研究和3个随机临床试验(DCCT、斯德哥尔摩糖尿病干预研究和日本研究)的结果得知,降低血糖有利于减少并发症。

5:降低血糖对心血管并发症没有显著的影响,发生致死性或非致死性心肌梗塞及碎死的危险性下降16%(P=0.52,无统计学意义)。

6:流行病学资料表明:发生心血管并发症的危险性和血糖过高之间呈连续相关。

HbA1c每下降1个百分点(例如9%降至8%),与糖尿病相关的死亡率(发生率)下降25%,总死亡率(发生率)下降7%,致死性和非致死性心肌梗塞率(发生率)下降18%。

  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

郭艺芳教授深度剖析:您完全了解 UKPDS 研究吗?2016-03-05 07:35来源:丁香园作者:郭艺芳英国前瞻性糖尿病研究(UKPDS)是人类抗争糖尿病征程中的一座丰碑,为我们认识与防治糖尿病及其并发症提供了大量重要信息。

就其科学意义而言,过去没有、将来也很难有其他研究与之抗衡。

然而近 20 余年来,很少有人关注该研究的全貌,许多医生认为UKPDS 研究只是证实降糖获益的一项随机化临床试验而已。

实际情况并非如此,UKPDS 系列研究包含着非常丰富的内容。

全面了解 UKPDS 研究内容,有助于我们正确认识降糖治疗对于 2 型糖尿病患者微血管和大血管合并症发病风险的影响。

本文简单归纳其中有代表性的部分研究内容,供参阅。

1. UKPDS 7(1990 年)以 3044 例新诊断糖尿病患者为对象,论证了控制热量摄入与减轻体重对于降低空腹血糖的重要性。

2. UKPDS 9(1993 年)以 672 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者为对象,探讨了 N- 乙酰葡糖胺酶、尿蛋白排泄率与空腹血糖之间的关系。

3. UKPDS 10(1993 年)以 585 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者为对象,探讨了饮食干预对尿蛋白排泄率的影响及其与高血压、高血糖和高甘油三酯血症的关系。

以 507 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者为对象,研究了受试者生化危险因素(胰岛素、甘油三酯、总胆固醇、HDL- 胆固醇、LDL- 胆固醇、尿蛋白、N- 乙酰葡糖胺酶、C 肽等)的分布特点。

5. UKPDS 13(1995 年)采取多中心随机化对照试验设计,共纳入 2520 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者,比较单纯饮食控制以及在控制饮食基础上分别加用氯磺丙脲、格列本脲、胰岛素或二甲双胍(肥胖患者)对空腹血糖的影响。

结果显示各种药物的降糖效果相似。

6. UKPDS 14(1995 年)研究发现 2 型糖尿病患者血管紧张素转换酶基因多态性等位基因缺失与心肌梗死的发生密切相关。

7. UKPDS 18(1996 年)共包括 132 例病史 3-6 年的 2 型糖尿病患者,旨在探讨不同基线特征患者的饮食结构是否会影响 UKPDS 研究结果。

结果表明,饮食因素不会对 UKPDS 研究的数据分析造成干扰。

8. UKPDS 19(1996)关于胰岛素受体底物、b3- 肾上腺素能受体、糖原合成酶基因与2 型糖尿病关系的分子生物学研究。

9. UKPDS 20(1997)旨在探讨 2 型糖尿病患者瘦素与胰岛素水平的关系,结果提示高胰岛素血症或胰岛素敏感性受损可能是瘦素水平增高的部分原因。

关于 2 型糖尿病患者基因突变的研究。

11. UKPDS 23(1998 年)关于新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者其他心血管危险因素的调查,结果显示 LDL-C 升高、HDL-C 降低、高血压、高血糖与吸烟是 2 型糖尿病患者的 5 大心血管危险因素。

12. UKPDS 25(1997 年)研究了不同亚型糖尿病患者中胰岛细胞胞浆抗体和谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体水平是否存在差异。

13. UKPDS 26(1998 年)以 1305 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者为对象,探讨了磺脲类药物治疗失效的相关因素。

结果发现,血糖水平较高、年龄较轻、胰岛 b 细胞储备少的患者更易发生磺脲类药物治疗失效,格列本脲较氯磺丙脲更易发生治疗失效。

14. UKPDS 28(1998 年)旨在评估 2 型糖尿病患者在磺脲治疗基础上加用二甲双胍的疗效。

共纳入 591 例经过最大剂量磺脲类药物治疗后血糖控制不佳的患者,结果显示无论患者是否肥胖或空腹血糖水平如何,在磺脲治疗基础上早期加用二甲双胍有助于改善血糖控制。

15. UKPDS 29(1999 年)共纳入 3776 例无明显心血管病的初诊 2 型糖尿病患者,对其卒中危险因素进行分析。

数学模型分析表明,肥胖、缺乏运动、吸烟、血糖控制不佳、高胰岛素血症、血脂异常、微量白蛋白尿与卒中发生风险无明显关系。

而强化降压、对房颤患者常规抗凝治疗可显著降低卒中风险。

16. UKPDS 31(1999 年)关于 2 型糖尿病 MODY3 基因突变的研究。

17. UKPDS 33(1998)旨在探讨与常规降糖治疗相比,应用磺脲类药物或胰岛素强化血糖控制对 2 型糖尿病患者微血管与大血管并发症发生率的影响。

共纳入 3867 例新诊断的 2 型糖尿病患者,中位数年龄 54 岁,随机分别纳入磺脲或胰岛素强化降糖组或常规降糖组。

研究终点包括任何糖尿病相关终点、糖尿病相关死亡、全因死亡。

经过 10 年的随访,其主要结果如下:强化降糖组与常规降糖组HbA1c 分别为 7.0% 与 7.9%。

与常规治疗组相比,强化降糖组患者任何糖尿病相关终点事件发生率降低 12%,糖尿病相关死亡降低 10%,全因死亡率降低 6%。

任何糖尿病相关终点事件发生率的下降主要是由微血管事件减少所驱动的(降低 25%)。

强化降糖组低血糖事件发生率显著高于常规治疗组。

本研究结论认为,应用磺脲类药物或胰岛素强化血糖控制可以显著减少 2 型糖尿病患者微血管并发症的发生,但不能降低大血管事件发生率。

18. UKPDS 34(1998 年)本研究是 UKPDS 主题研究的亚组分析,旨在探讨与磺脲类药物或胰岛素相比, 应用二甲双胍强化降糖对初诊 2 型糖尿病患者终点事件的影响。

在 UKPDS 研究所纳入的 4075 例初诊 2 型糖尿病患者中,有1704 例肥胖糖尿病患者。

该研究首先比较了单纯饮食干预(411 例)与应用二甲双胍强化降糖的疗效差异;同时比较了接受二甲双胍(342 例超重患者)、氯磺丙脲(265 例)、格列本脲(277 例)或胰岛素(409 例)强化降糖治疗的临床疗效。

结果发现,与胰岛素或磺脲类药物治疗相比,超重的 2 型糖尿病患者应用二甲双胍强化降糖有助于降低糖尿病相关终点事件发生率,且较少增加体重,较少发生低血糖。

据此,该研究认为二甲双胍应作为此类患者的一线治疗。

19. UKPDS 35(2000 年)该研究是一项前瞻性观察性研究,旨在探讨 2 型糖尿病患者高血糖与微血管和大血管并发症风险之间的关系。

共纳入 4585 例患者,主要终点为糖尿病相关性任意终点事件或死亡、以及全因死亡。

根据受试者 HbA1c 水平将其分为 <6%、6%-7%、7%-8%、8%-9%、9%-10% 与≥ 10% 共 6 组,然后分别计算各组患者终点事件发生率。

分析结果显示,血糖水平与临床并发症发生率之间存在密切关系。

HbA1c 每降低 1%,任何糖尿病终点事件降低 21%,糖尿病相关死亡降低 21%,心肌梗死发生率降低 14%,微血管并发症减少 37%。

本研究结论认为,高血糖与糖尿病并发症风险之间存在密切关系。

HbA1c 水平降低可能显著减少糖尿病并发症的发病风险,当 HbA1c 处于正常水平(<6%)时,并发症发病风险最低。

需要指出的是,UKPDS 35 研究既不是随机化对照试验,更不是药物干预研究。

简单地说,该研究只是针对糖尿病患者血糖水平与微血管和大血管事件发生率之关系所做的一项相关性分析。

从研究设计来看,本研究更接近于流行病学分析。

因此,不宜将此研究结论作为强化降糖可以带来大血管甚至微血管获益的证据。

20. UKPDS 36(2000 年)属于前瞻性观察性分析。

结果显示收缩压每降低 10 mmHg,糖尿病并发症发生风险降低 12%,糖尿病相关死亡减少 15%,心肌梗死减少 11%,微血管并发症减少 13%。

需要指出的是,虽然降压治疗对于降低糖尿病患者大血管与微血管并发症风险的作用已被充分论证,但本研究并非治疗干预研究,因而其证据力度较低。

21. UKPDS 37(1999 年)关于影响 2 型糖尿病患者生活质量的因素的研究。

22. UKPDS 38(1998 年)旨在评估严格控制血压可否预防 2 型糖尿病患者大血管与微血管并发症。

共纳入 1148 例伴高血压的 2 型糖尿病患者,结果显示与对照组相比(血压降至 154/87 mmHg),强化降压组(血压降至144/82 mmHg)糖尿病相关死亡、以及视网膜病变等并发症均显著减少。

旨在探讨 2 型糖尿病患者应用 b 受体阻滞剂或 ACEI 类药物降压治疗预防大血管或微血管并发症的疗效是否存在差异。

结果提示,降低血压是伴高血压的糖尿病患者临床获益的主要机制,应用卡托普利或阿替洛尔降压治疗对于预防受试者并发症的效果无显著差别。

24. UKPDS 40(1998 年)对伴高血压的 2 型糖尿病患者强化降压治疗的成本效益分析。

结果表明严格控制 2 型糖尿病患者血压可以显著降低合并症的治疗费用、延长存活期限,因而具有良好的价格获益比。

25. UKPDS 41(2000 年)强化降糖的费用效益分析。

26. UKPDS 42(1999 年)探讨 2 型糖尿病患者中,微动脉瘤对于视网膜病变的恶化有无预测价值,结果显示微动脉瘤与视网膜病变密切相关。

27. UKPDS 43(1999 年)关于自身免疫型糖尿病的遗传异质性研究。

28. UKPDS 45(2000 年)探讨了新诊断糖尿病患者进行饮食干预对于血脂指标的影响,结果显示饮食疗法可以显著降低甘油三酯水平,对其他血脂参数也有一定影响。

29. UKPDS 46(2000 年)通过计算机数学模型预测糖尿病患者的预期寿命。

探讨初诊糖尿病患者高血糖和高胰岛素血症与此后发生缺血性心脏病和卒中之间的关系,结果显示仅高血糖与大血管并发症的风险增高有关。

31. UKPDS 49(1999 年)探讨各种降糖方法实现血糖达标的可能性。

共纳入 4075 例新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者,分别予以单纯饮食干预、胰岛素、磺脲、或二甲双胍治疗。

结果显示,与单纯饮食干预相比,其他各种药物治疗措施均可使血糖达标率增高 20%~30%。

32. UKPDS 50(2001 年)以 UKPDS 研究对象中的 1919 例患者为基础,分析了影响糖尿病视网膜病变进展的相关因素,结论认为良好的血糖控制以及严格控制血压可降低糖尿病视网膜病变风险。

33. UKPDS 51(2001 年)以 UKPDS 研究受试者中的 753 例超重患者为对象,分析了应用二甲双胍强化血糖控制的效价比,结果表明超重患者将二甲双胍作为一线治疗药物具有良好的效价比且能延长患者预期寿命。

34. UKPDS 52(2001 年)探讨了新诊断 2 型糖尿病患者视网膜病变的严重程度以及未来需要激光凝固术治疗的风险。

35. UKPDS 53(2001 年)关于胰岛 b 细胞 ATP 敏感钾通道的分子生物学研究。

比较糖尿病患者应用卡托普利或阿替洛尔强化降压的治疗费用。

结果表明两种药物均能同样有效的控制血压,但阿替洛尔组患者所需费用明显较低。

相关文档
最新文档