Prevention of diabetes and reduction in major cardiovascular events in studies of subjects with prediabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.

Ingrid Hopper, Baki Billah, Marina Skiba, Henry Krum
{"title":"Prevention of diabetes and reduction in major cardiovascular events in studies of subjects with prediabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.","authors":"Ingrid Hopper,&nbsp;Baki Billah,&nbsp;Marina Skiba,&nbsp;Henry Krum","doi":"10.1177/1741826711421687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) are pre-diabetic states, treatment of which may prevent or delay the onset of overt diabetes and thus potentially reduce major cardiovascular (CV) events. We therefore sought to determine whether interventions (including diet, exercise and pharmacological therapy), altered all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality in such subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a meta-analysis of prospective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were identified in the medical literature and databases. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they reported all-cause mortality rates (at a minimum), recruited approximately 100 patients and had a minimum follow-up of one year. Interventions were divided into pharmacological and non-pharmacological.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten RCTs that enrolled 23,152 patients met the above entry criteria. Trials ran for an average of 3.75 years. Diabetes was delayed or prevented by these interventions vs control (risk ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.80-0.86). Non-drug approaches (n = 3495) were superior to drug-based approaches (n = 20,872) in diabetes prevention (0.52, 0.46-0.58 vs 0.70, 0.58-0.85, P < 0.05). There was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality in the intervention versus control group (0.96, 0.84-1.10) and no difference in CV death (1.04, 0.61-1.78). There was a non-significant trend towards reduction in fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.59, 0.23-1.50). Fatal and non-fatal stroke was borderline reduced (0.76, 0.58-0.99) with intervention versus control.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite interventions being mostly successful in retarding progression to overt diabetes, this did not result in reductions in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, with the possible exception of stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":50492,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1741826711421687","citationCount":"147","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1741826711421687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 147

Abstract

Background: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) are pre-diabetic states, treatment of which may prevent or delay the onset of overt diabetes and thus potentially reduce major cardiovascular (CV) events. We therefore sought to determine whether interventions (including diet, exercise and pharmacological therapy), altered all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality in such subjects.

Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of prospective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were identified in the medical literature and databases. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they reported all-cause mortality rates (at a minimum), recruited approximately 100 patients and had a minimum follow-up of one year. Interventions were divided into pharmacological and non-pharmacological.

Results: Ten RCTs that enrolled 23,152 patients met the above entry criteria. Trials ran for an average of 3.75 years. Diabetes was delayed or prevented by these interventions vs control (risk ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.80-0.86). Non-drug approaches (n = 3495) were superior to drug-based approaches (n = 20,872) in diabetes prevention (0.52, 0.46-0.58 vs 0.70, 0.58-0.85, P < 0.05). There was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality in the intervention versus control group (0.96, 0.84-1.10) and no difference in CV death (1.04, 0.61-1.78). There was a non-significant trend towards reduction in fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.59, 0.23-1.50). Fatal and non-fatal stroke was borderline reduced (0.76, 0.58-0.99) with intervention versus control.

Conclusions: Despite interventions being mostly successful in retarding progression to overt diabetes, this did not result in reductions in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, with the possible exception of stroke.

糖尿病前期研究中预防糖尿病和减少主要心血管事件:随机对照临床试验的荟萃分析
背景:糖耐量受损(IGT)和空腹血糖受损(IFG)是糖尿病前期状态,治疗它们可以预防或延缓显性糖尿病的发作,从而潜在地减少主要心血管(CV)事件。因此,我们试图确定干预措施(包括饮食、运动和药物治疗)是否改变了这些受试者的全因死亡率和心血管相关死亡率。方法:我们对医学文献和数据库中确定的前瞻性随机对照试验(rct)进行了荟萃分析。如果试验报告了全因死亡率(至少),招募了大约100名患者,随访时间至少为一年,则符合纳入条件。干预措施分为药理学和非药理学。结果:10项随机对照试验纳入了23152例患者,符合上述入组标准。试验的平均时间为3.75年。与对照组相比,这些干预措施延迟或预防了糖尿病(风险比0.83,95%CI 0.80-0.86)。非药物方法(n = 3495)在糖尿病预防方面优于药物方法(n = 20,872) (0.52, 0.46-0.58 vs 0.70, 0.58-0.85, P)。结论:尽管干预措施在延缓显性糖尿病进展方面大多成功,但这并没有导致全因死亡率或心血管死亡率或心肌梗死的降低,可能中风除外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信