首页> 外文期刊>Diabetes care >Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the accord randomized trial
【24h】

Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the accord randomized trial

机译:2型糖尿病患者组合的心血管风险因素管理策略结果:雅阁随机试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE To compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40-79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of 6.0% (42mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0-7.9% (53- 63mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of 120 mmHg (intensive BP) or 140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes. RESULTS In the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95%CI 0.52-0.96) comparedwith combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes,MIwas significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. Themortality HRwas 1.33 (95%CI 1.02-1.74) in the standard lipid/ intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group. CONCLUSIONS In the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improvedmajor CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality.
机译:目的比较标准和密集治疗糖血症和血压(BP)或脂质在糖尿病(Accord)试验中的作用中的血压和血压(BP)或脂质的组合的影响。研究设计和方法符合40,251型糖尿病患者40-79岁的患者,高风险心血管疾病(CVD)事件。将参与者随机分配给血红蛋白A1C的目标和GT; 6.0%(& 42mmol / mol;强化糖血症)或7.0-7.9%(53-63mmol / mol;标准糖血症),然后将第二次随机分配给1)收缩压bp & 120 mmHg(强化BP)或& 140 mmHg(标准BP)或2)Simvastatin Plus Fenofibrate(熟注的脂质)或辛伐他汀加安慰剂(标准脂质)。采用比例危害模型用于评估复合原代(由于CVD,非致死性心肌梗死[Mi]和非常规中风)和二次结果的组合初级(死亡死亡)的组合。结果在BP试验中,对糖类血症的集中治疗的组中主要结果的风险降低(危险比[HR] 0.67; 95%CI 0.50-0.91),BP(HR 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-1.00),或两者(HR 0.71; 95%CI 0.52-0.96)比较标准BP和糖血症治疗。对于二次结果,MIWA通过密集型BP治疗,密集的糖血症治疗和中风显着降低;大多数其他人力资源都是中性或有利的密集治疗组。在脂质试验中,结果的一般模式表明,与联合标准的脂质和糖血症治疗相比,没有有利于密集的方案(无论是单一或合并的缺点的证据。与标准脂质/标准糖血症组相比,标准脂质/密集血症组中的题位HRWAs 1.33(95%CI 1.02-1.74)。结论在Accord BP试验中,与合并标准治疗,密集的BP或密集糖血症治疗相比,单独促进了MAJOR CVD结果,而无需额外的益处。在Accord Lipid试验中,绝对脂质和糖血症治疗都没有产生整体益处,但强烈的糖血症治疗增加了死亡率。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Diabetes care》 |2014年第6期|共8页
  • 作者单位

    HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research Minneapolis MN United States;

    HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research Minneapolis MN United States;

    Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC United States;

    University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill NC United States;

    Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center University of Cincinnati Cincinnati OH United States;

    Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center Memphis TN United States;

    National Heart Lung Blood Institute Bethesda MD United States;

    Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem NC United States;

    McMaster University Hamilton ON Canada;

    Berman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research Minneapolis MN United States;

    University of Washington Seattle WA United States;

    Emory University Atlanta GA United States;

    Oregon Health and Science University Portland OR United States;

    Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center Case Western Reserve University Cleveland OH;

    Colorado School of Public Health Aurora CO United States;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 内分泌腺疾病及代谢病;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号