4.5 Article

Association Between the Use of Antihyperglycemic Drugs and Dementia Risk: A Case-Control Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 725-732

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-180808

关键词

Antihyperglycemic drugs; case-control study; dementia; Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is a conflicting literature on the association between the use of antihyperglycemic drugs and dementia risk. Objective: The goal of this case-control study was to analyze the association between the use of antihyperglycemic drugs and dementia risk in patients followed in general practices in Germany. Methods: This study included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had received a first dementia diagnosis in 972 general practices in Germany between January 2013 and December 2017 (index date). Controls without dementia were matched (1:1) to cases by age, gender, index year, and physician. Two multivariate regression models were used to study the association between the use of antihyperglycemic drugs and dementia risk. Model 1 included all antihyperglycemic drugs prescribed to patients regardless of the prescription duration, whereas Model 2 only included the longest therapy prescribed to each patient. Results: There were 8,276 diabetes patients with dementia and 8,276 diabetes patients without dementia included in this study. In Model 1, glitazones were associated with a decreased dementia risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80), whereas insulin was associated with an increased risk of developing the condition (OR = 1.34). In Model 2, metformin, prescribed as monotherapy (OR = 0.71) or as dual therapy with sulfonylureas (OR = 0.90), was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of subsequently being diagnosed with dementia. By contrast, the combination of basal insulin and bolus insulin (OR = 1.47) and premix insulin (OR = 1.33) were risk factors for dementia. Conclusion: Metformin and glitazones were negatively associated with dementia, while insulin was positively associated with dementia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据