4.7 Article

Glycemic Control, Complications, and Death in Older Diabetic Patients The Diabetes and Aging Study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1329-1336

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc10-2377

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01-DK081796, R01-DK65664, R01-DK080726, P60-DK20595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-To identify the range of glycemic levels associated with the lowest rates of complications and mortality in older diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2004-2008) of 71,092 patients with type 2 diabetes, aged >= 60 years, enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We specified Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the relationships between baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and subsequent outcomes (nonfatal complications [acute metabolic, microvascular, and cardiovascular events] and mortality). RESULTS-The cohort (aged 71.0 +/- 7.4 years [means +/- SD]) had a mean A1C of 7.0 +/- 1.2%. The risk of any nonfatal complication rose monotonically for levels of A1C >6.0% (e.g., adjusted hazard ratio 1.09 [95% Cl 1.02-1.16] for A1C 0 6.0-6.9% and 1.86 [1.63-2.13] for A1C >= 11.0%). Mortality had a U-shaped relationship with A1C. Compared with the risk with A1C <6.0%, mortality risk was lower for A1C levels between 6.0 and 9.0% (e.g., 0.83 [0.76-0.90] for A1C 7.0-7.9%) and higher at A1C >= 11.0% (1.31 [1.09-1.57]). Risk of any end point (complication or death) became significantly higher at A1C >= 8.0%. Patterns generally were consistent across age-groups (60-69, 70-79, and >= 80 years). CONCLUSIONS-Observed relationships between A1C and combined end points support setting a target of A1C <8.0% for older patients, with the caution that A1Cs <6.0% were associated with increased mortality risk. Additional research is needed to evaluate the low A1C-mortality relationship, as well as protocols for individualizing diabetes care.

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