20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diabetes treatments and risk of heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality: cohort study in primary care

      research-article
      ,
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To assess associations between risks of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and all cause mortality and different diabetes drugs in people with type 2 diabetes, particularly newer agents, including gliptins and thiazolidinediones (glitazones).

          Design Open cohort study.

          Setting 1243 general practices contributing data to the QResearch database in England.

          Participants 469 688 people with type 2 diabetes aged 25-84 years between 1 April 2007 and 31 January 2015.

          Exposures Diabetes drugs (glitazones, gliptins, metformin, sulphonylureas, insulin, other) alone and in combination.

          Main outcome measure First recorded diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and all cause mortality recorded on the patients’ primary care, mortality, or hospital record. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for diabetes treatments, adjusting for potential confounders.

          Results During follow-up, 21 308 patients (4.5%) received prescriptions for glitazones and 32 533 (6.9%) received prescriptions for gliptins. Compared with non-use, gliptins were significantly associated with an 18% decreased risk of all cause mortality, a 14% decreased risk of heart failure, and no significant change in risk of cardiovascular disease; corresponding values for glitazones were significantly decreased risks of 23% for all cause mortality, 26% for heart failure, and 25% for cardiovascular disease. Compared with no current treatment, there were no significant associations between monotherapy with gliptins and risk of any complications. Dual treatment with gliptins and metformin was associated with a decreased risk of all three outcomes (reductions of 38% for heart failure, 33% for cardiovascular disease, and 48% for all cause mortality). Triple treatment with metformin, sulphonylureas, and gliptins was associated with a decreased risk of all three outcomes (reductions of 40% for heart failure, 30% for cardiovascular disease, and 51% for all cause mortality). Compared with no current treatment, monotherapy with glitazone was associated with a 50% decreased risk of heart failure, and dual treatment with glitazones and metformin was associated with a decreased risk of all three outcomes (reductions of 50% for heart failure, 54% for cardiovascular disease, and 45% for all cause mortality); dual treatment with glitazones and sulphonylureas was associated with risk reductions of 35% for heart failure and 25% for cardiovascular disease; triple treatment with metformin, sulphonylureas, and glitazones was associated with decreased risks of all three outcomes (reductions of 46% for heart failure, 41% for cardiovascular disease, and 56% for all cause mortality).

          Conclusions There are clinically important differences in risk of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and all cause mortality between different diabetes drugs alone and in combination. Overall, use of gliptins or glitazones was associated with decreased risks of heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality compared with non-use of these drugs. These results, which do not account for levels of adherence or dosage information and which are subject to confounding by indication, might have implications for prescribing of diabetes drugs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

          Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred.

            Epidemiologic studies commonly estimate associations between predictors (risk factors) and outcome. Most software automatically exclude subjects with missing values. This commonly causes bias because missing values seldom occur completely at random (MCAR) but rather selectively based on other (observed) variables, missing at random (MAR). Multiple imputation (MI) of missing predictor values using all observed information including outcome is advocated to deal with selective missing values. This seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. We tested this hypothesis using data from a study on diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We selected five predictors of pulmonary embolism without missing values. Their regression coefficients and standard errors (SEs) estimated from the original sample were considered as "true" values. We assigned missing values to these predictors--both MCAR and MAR--and repeated this 1,000 times using simulations. Per simulation we multiple imputed the missing values without and with the outcome, and compared the regression coefficients and SEs to the truth. Regression coefficients based on MI including outcome were close to the truth. MI without outcome yielded very biased--underestimated--coefficients. SEs and coverage of the 90% confidence intervals were not different between MI with and without outcome. Results were the same for MCAR and MAR. For all types of missing values, imputation of missing predictor values using the outcome is preferred over imputation without outcome and is no self-fulfilling prophecy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database

              Objective To quantify the unintended effects of statins according to type, dose, and duration of use. Design Prospective open cohort study using routinely collected data. Setting 368 general practices in England and Wales supplying data to the QResearch database. Participants 2 004 692 patients aged 30-84 years of whom 225 922 (10.7%) were new users of statins: 159 790 (70.7%) were prescribed simvastatin, 50 328 (22.3%) atorvastatin, 8103 (3.6%) pravastatin, 4497 (1.9%) rosuvastatin, and 3204 (1.4%) fluvastatin. Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate effects of statin type, dose, and duration of use. The number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated and numbers of additional or fewer cases estimated for 10 000 treated patients. Main outcome measure First recorded occurrence of cardiovascular disease, moderate or serious myopathic events, moderate or serious liver dysfunction, acute renal failure, venous thromboembolism, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, cataract, osteoporotic fracture, gastric cancer, oesophageal cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, renal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer. Results Individual statins were not significantly associated with risk of Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, venous thromboembolism, dementia, osteoporotic fracture, gastric cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, renal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer. Statin use was associated with decreased risks of oesophageal cancer but increased risks of moderate or serious liver dysfunction, acute renal failure, moderate or serious myopathy, and cataract. Adverse effects were similar across statin types for each outcome except liver dysfunction where risks were highest for fluvastatin. A dose-response effect was apparent for acute renal failure and liver dysfunction. All increased risks persisted during treatment and were highest in the first year. After stopping treatment the risk of cataract returned to normal within a year in men and women. Risk of oesophageal cancer returned to normal within a year in women and within 1-3 years in men. Risk of acute renal failure returned to normal within 1-3 years in men and women, and liver dysfunction within 1-3 years in women and from three years in men. Based on the 20% threshold for cardiovascular risk, for women the NNT with any statin to prevent one case of cardiovascular disease over five years was 37 (95% confidence interval 27 to 64) and for oesophageal cancer was 1266 (850 to 3460) and for men the respective values were 33 (24 to 57) and 1082 (711 to 2807). In women the NNH for an additional case of acute renal failure over five years was 434 (284 to 783), of moderate or severe myopathy was 259 (186 to 375), of moderate or severe liver dysfunction was 136 (109 to 175), and of cataract was 33 (28 to 38). Overall, the NNHs and NNTs for men were similar to those for women, except for myopathy where the NNH was 91 (74 to 112). Conclusions Claims of unintended benefits of statins, except for oesophageal cancer, remain unsubstantiated, although potential adverse effects at population level were confirmed and quantified. Further studies are needed to develop utilities to individualise the risks so that patients at highest risk of adverse events can be monitored closely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of clinical epidemiology and general practice
                Role: professor of medical statistics in primary care
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2016
                13 July 2016
                : 354
                : i3477
                Affiliations
                [1]Division of Primary Care, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG2 7RD, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J Hippisley-Cox Julia.hippisley-cox@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Article
                hipj030247
                10.1136/bmj.i3477
                4948032
                27413012
                3a157935-ac45-428f-8adc-8ecbd3eeea43
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

                History
                : 17 June 2016
                Categories
                Research
                1778

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article