4.7 Article

The Risk of Overall Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Glipizide, Glyburide, or Glimepiride Monotherapy A retrospective analysis

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1224-1229

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc10-0017

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Sulfonylureas have historically been analyzed as a medication class, which may be inappropriate given the differences in properties inherent to the individual sulfonylureas (hypoglycemic risk, sulfonylurea receptor selectivity, and effects on myocardial ischemic preconditioning). The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of individual sulfonylureas and the risk of overall mortality in a large cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A retrospective cohort study was conducted using an academic health center enterprise-wide electronic health record (EHR) system to identify 11,141 patients with type 2 diabetes (4,279 initiators of monotherapy with glyburide, 4,325 initiators of monotherapy with glipizide, and 2,537 initiators of monotherapy with glimepiride), years of age with and without a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and not on insulin or a noninsulin injectable at baseline. The patients were followed for mortality by documentation in the EHR and Social Security Death Index. Multivariable Cox models were used to compare cohorts. RESULTS - No statistically significant difference in the risk of overall mortality was observed among these agents in the entire cohort, but we did find evidence of a trend toward an increased overall mortality risk with glyburide versus glimepiride (hazard ratio 1.36[95% CI 0.96-1.91]) and glipizide versus glimepiride (1.39 [0.99-1.96]) in those with documented CAD. CONCLUSIONS - Our results did not identify an increased mortality risk among the individual sulfonylureas but did suggest that glimepiride may be the preferred sulfonylurea in those with underlying CAD.

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