4.7 Article

Time trends in deaths before age 50 years in people with type 1 diabetes: a nationwide analysis from Scotland 2004-2017

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 63, 期 8, 页码 1626-1636

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-020-05173-w

关键词

DKA; Epidemiology; Mortality; Type 1 diabetes

资金

  1. Diabetes UK [17/0005627]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis We aimed to examine whether crude mortality and mortality relative to the general population below 50 years of age have improved in recent years in those with type 1 diabetes. Methods Individuals with type 1 diabetes aged below 50 and at least 1 year old at any time between 2004 and 2017 in Scotland were identified using the national register. Death data were obtained by linkage to Scottish national death registrations. Indirect age standardisation was used to calculate sex-specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs). Poisson regression was used to test for calendar-time effects as incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results There were 1138 deaths in 251,143 person-years among 27,935 people with type 1 diabetes. There was a significant decline in mortality rate over time (IRR for calendar year 0.983 [95% CI 0.967, 0.998], p = 0.03), but the SMR remained approximately stable at 3.1 and 3.6 in men and 4.09 and 4.16 in women for 2004 and 2017, respectively. Diabetic ketoacidosis or coma (DKAoC) accounted for 22% of deaths and the rate did not decline significantly (IRR 0.975 [95% CI 0.94, 1.011], p = 0.168); 79.3% of DKAoC deaths occurred out of hospital. Circulatory diseases accounted for 27% of deaths and did decline significantly (IRR 0.946 [95% CI 0.914, 0.979], p = 0.002). Conclusions/interpretation Absolute mortality has fallen, but the relative impact of type 1 diabetes on mortality below 50 years has not improved. There is scope to improve prevention of premature circulatory diseases and DKAoC and to develop more effective strategies for enabling people with type 1 diabetes to avoid clinically significant hyper- or hypoglycaemia.

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

4.7
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