Fármacos en diabetes = fallando como escopetas de feria, y dañando pacientes que creen que con el fármaco ya van bien.
Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes.
Currie CJ1, Poole CD, Evans M, Peters JR, Morgan CL.
The safety of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has recently undergone scrutiny.
The objective of the study was to characterize the risk of adverse events associated with glucose-lowering therapies in people with T2DM.
DESIGN AND SETTING:
This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database, 2000-2010.
Patients comprised 84 622 primary care patients with T2DM treated with one of five glucose-lowering regimens: metformin monotherapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, insulin monotherapy, metformin plus sulfonylurea combination therapy, and insulin plus metformin combination therapy. There were 105 123 exposure periods.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
The risk of the first major adverse cardiac event, first cancer, or mortality was measured. Secondary outcomes included these individual constituents and microvascular complications.
In the same model, and using metformin monotherapy as the referent, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for the primary end point was significantly increased for sulfonylurea monotherapy (1.436, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.354-1.523), insulin monotherapy (1.808, 95% CI 1.630-2.005), and insulin plus metformin (1.309, 95% CI 1.150-1.491). In glycosylated hemoglobin/morbidity subgroups, patients treated with insulin monotherapy had aHRs for the primary outcome ranging from 1.469 (95% CI 0.978-2.206) to 2.644 (95% CI 1.896-3.687). For all secondary outcomes, insulin monotherapy had increased aHRs: myocardial infarction (1.954, 95% CI 1.479-2.583), major adverse cardiac events (1.736, 95% CI 1.441-2.092), stroke (1.432, 95% CI 1.159-1.771), renal complications (3.504, 95% CI 2.718-4.518), neuropathy (2.146, 95% CI 1.832-2.514), eye complications (1.171, 95% CI 1.057-1.298), cancer (1.437, 95% CI 1.234-1.674), or all-cause mortality (2.197, 95% CI 1.983-2.434). When compared directly, aHRs were higher for insulin monotherapy vs all other regimens for the primary end point and all-cause mortality.
In people with T2DM, exogenous insulin therapy was associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications, cancer, and all-cause mortality. Differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups should be considered when interpreting these results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 2/abstract
To evaluate the association between insulin exposure and all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and incident cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin monotherapy.
For this retrospective study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The risks of progression to serious adverse outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. In the main analysis, insulin exposure was introduced into the model as prescribed international units per kilogram per day, as a cumulative, continuous, annually updated, time-dependent covariable.
A total of 6484 subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to treatment with insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 onwards were followed for a mean of 3.3 years. The event numbers were as follows: deaths, n = 1110; incident MACE, n = 342; incident cancers, n = 382. Unadjusted event rates were 61.3 deaths per 1000 person-years, 26.4 incident MACE per 1000 person-years and 24.6 incident cancers per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios in relation to 1-unit increases in insulin dose were 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32–1.78] for all-cause mortality, 1.37 (95% CI 1.05–1.81) for MACE and 1.35 (95% CI 1.04–1.75) for cancer.
There was an association between increasing exogenous insulin dose and increased risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes. The limitations of observational studies mean that this should be further investigated using an interventional study design.