4.4 Article

Oral hypoglycaemic agents and the development of non-fatal cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 673-679

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2444

关键词

metformin; sulfonylurea; type 2 diabetes mellitus; cardiovascular events

资金

  1. China Medical University Hospital [DMR 99036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsThis study aimed to assess the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are taking metformin, glimepiride or glyburide. Materials and methodsUsing the National Health Insurance Research database in Taiwan, this retrospective cohort study identified 1159 patients with newly diagnosed T2DM from 1998 to 2007, 30years and older and without a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline. Patients with cancer, liver cirrhosis or chronic kidney disease were excluded. On the basis of prescription, patients were grouped into three medication subcohorts: metformin (N=595), glimepiride (N=234) or glyburide (N=330) monotherapy for 100% of the follow-up period without any oral anti-diabetic agents added or changed, by the end of 2009. Incidence and hazard ratios of non-fatal cardiovascular events including coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, stroke and heart failure among these three subcohorts were compared. ResultsThe overall incidence of non-fatal cardiovascular events was the highest for patients taking glyburide (169.1 per 1000 person-years), followed by for those taking glimepiride and metformin (95.2 and 49.1 per 1000 person-years, respectively). Compared with the adjusted hazard ratio for patients taking glyburide, the adjusted hazard ratio for those taking glimepiride was 0.52 (95% CI 0.40-0.69) and for those taking metformin was 0.31 (95% CI 0.24-0.40). ConclusionsT2DM patients taking metformin and glimepiride are at lower risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events than those taking glyburide. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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