4.5 Article

Utilization of glucose, blood pressure, and lipid lowering medications among people with type II diabetes in the United States, 1999-2010

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 516-521

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.05.001

关键词

Diabetes; Prescription medications; NHANES

资金

  1. Hong Kong Research Grants Council [HKU7802/10M]
  2. Sun Chieh Yeh Heart Foundation
  3. Faculty Development Fund, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1037903]
  5. National Heart Foundation of Australia [G 12S 6681]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Changes in relation to drug treatment to various control targets for diabetes were studied using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2010. Methods: Data on 3094 participants aged 20 years or older with diagnosed type II diabetes were analyzed. Use of medications for lowering glucose, blood pressure, and lipids in the past month was assessed by questionnaire. Data from two survey cycles were combined together to produce estimates for each 4-year period. Results: Usage of metformin increased from 34.8% to 53.8% and was the most prevalent medications during this period (P < .001), and half of subjects taking metformin could achieve glycated hemoglobin less than 7.0% in 2007-2010. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were used by 7.4% of participants in 2007 2010. Usage of angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers increased significantly from 7.4% to 21.4% and from 153% to 31.8%, respectively from 1999 to 2010 (P <= .001). A total of 64.7% of participants could attain blood pressure control by 2007-2010. Usage of statins doubled in 1999-2010 and 52.2% of subjects took statins by 2007-2010 (P < .001). Conclusions: Metformin is the first-line drug for diabetes while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors started to be used since 2007. Blood pressure control improved in 1999-2010 partly due to increased drug prescriptions. Although statins were widely used about half of the participants did not take them. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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