ArticleClinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN2016
Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Line Agents for the Treatment of Diabetes Type 2 in Preventing Kidney Function Decline.
Article in Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Second-Line Agents for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes and Prevention of CKD.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDiabetes is the leading cause of ESRD. Glucose control improves kidney outcomes. Most patients eventually require treatment intensification with second-line medications; however, the differential effects of those therapies on kidney function are unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS & MEASUREMENTS: We studied a retrospective cohort of veterans on metformin monotherapy from 2001 to 2008 who added either insulin or sulfonylurea and were followed through September of 2011. We used propensity score matching 1:4 for those who intensified with insulin versus sulfonylurea, respectively. The primary composite outcome was persistent decline in eGFR≥35% from baseline (GFR event) or a diagnosis of ESRD. The secondary outcome was a GFR event, ESRD, or death. Outcome risks were compared using marginal structural models to account for time-varying covariates. The primary analysis required persistence with the intensified regimen. An effect modification of baseline eGFR and the intervention on both outcomes was evaluated.
resultsThere were 1989 patients on metformin and insulin and 7956 patients on metformin and sulfonylurea. Median patient age was 60 years old (interquartile range, 54-67), median hemoglobin A1c was 8.1% (interquartile range, 7.1%-9.9%), and median creatinine was 1.0 mg/dl (interquartile range, 0.9-1.1). The rate of GFR event or ESRD (primary outcome) was 31 versus 26 per 1000 person-years for those who added insulin versus sulfonylureas, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.63). The rate of GFR event, ESRD, or death was 64 versus 49 per 1000 person-years, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.59). Tests for a therapy by baseline eGFR interaction for both the primary and secondary outcomes were not significant (P=0.39 and P=0.12, respectively).
conclusionsAmong patients who intensified metformin monotherapy, the addition of insulin compared with a sulfonylurea was not associated with a higher rate of kidney outcomes but was associated with a higher rate of the composite outcome that included death. These risks were not modified by baseline eGFR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.