4.7 Article

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 379-385

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12431

关键词

database research; DPP-IV inhibitor; pharmaco-epidemiology; type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. Societe Francophone du Diabete
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. CIHR
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine whether the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and the Hospital Episodes Statistics database were used to conduct a nested case-control analysis within a cohort of new users of antidiabetic drugs between 2007 and 2012. Incident cases of hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia were matched with up to 20 controls on age, duration of treated diabetes, calendar year and duration of follow-up. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia associated with current use of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with current use of two or more oral antidiabetic drugs. Results: The cohort included 49 653 patients, of whom 562 were hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia during follow-up (incidence rate 5.2/1000 person-years). Compared with current use of two or more oral antidiabetic drugs, current use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia overall (adjusted OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.50-1.29) or according to duration of use (p for trend=0.57). Conclusions: The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia. Additional research is needed to assess the association between these drugs and other serious infections.

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