Observational studyBMJ open2019
Impact of ischaemic heart disease severity and age on risk of cardiovascular outcome in diabetes patients in Sweden: a nationwide observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a European economic evaluation of the THEMIS trial.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2022Trial
- Elucidating causal effects of type 2 diabetes on ischemic heart disease from observational data on middle-aged Swedish women: a triangular analytical approach.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Prevalence, prescriptions, outcomes and costs of type 2 diabetes patients with or without prior coronary artery disease or stroke: a longitudinal 5-year claims-data analysis of over 7 million inhabitants.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare short-term cardiovascular (CV) outcome in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients without ischaemic heart disease (IHD), with IHD but no prior myocardial infarction (MI), and those with prior MI; and assess the impact on risk of age when initiating first-time glucose-lowering drug (GLD).
designCohort study linking morbidity, mortality and medication data from Swedish national registries.
participantsFirst-time users of GLD during 2007-2016. OUTCOMES: Predicted cumulative incidence for the CV outcome (MI, stroke and CV mortality) was estimated. A Cox model was developed where age at GLD start and CV risk was modelled.
results260 070 first-time GLD users were included, 221 226 (85%) had no IHD, 16 294 (6%) had stable IHD-prior MI and 22 550 (9%) had IHD+MI. T2D patients without IHD had a lower risk of CV outcome compared with the IHD populations (±prior MI), (3-year incidence 4.78% vs 5.85% and 8.04%). The difference in CV outcome was primarily driven by a relative greater MI risk among the IHD patients. For T2D patients without IHD, an almost linear association between age at start of GLD and relative risk was observed, whereas in IHD patients, the younger (<60 years) patients had a relative greater risk compared with older patients.
conclusionsT2D patients without IHD had a lower risk of the CV outcome compared with the T2D populations with IHD, primarily driven by a greater risk of MI. For T2D patients without IHD, an almost linear association between age at start of GLD and relative risk was observed, whereas in IHD patients, the younger patients had a relative greater risk compared with older patients. Our findings suggest that intense risk prevention should be the key strategy in the management of T2D patients, especially for younger patients.
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.