文献速递2 型糖尿病长期管理

瑞典真实世界数据中德谷胰岛素与甘精胰岛素的心血管结局比较

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Trial‐Eligible and Ineligible Populations: A DEVOTE‐Inspired Target Trial Emulation Using the Swedish National Diabetes Register
RSS 订阅 · Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism · 2026-10-20

本研究利用瑞典全国健康登记数据,对2012至2022年间起始德谷胰岛素或甘精胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者进行目标试验模拟。纳入44 890例符合研究标准者,分为DEVOTE试验合格模拟队列和试验不合格模拟队列。结果显示,试验合格队列中两组MACE风险相似,但德谷胰岛素全因死亡风险显著更低;试验不合格队列中德谷胰岛素MACE及其多项次要结局风险均更低。

要点

  • 试验合格人群中德谷胰岛素MACE风险与甘精胰岛素相似(RR 1.10;95% CI 0.91–1.34)。
  • 两个队列中德谷胰岛素均与更低的的全因死亡风险相关。
  • 试验不合格人群中德谷胰岛素还伴MACE、心血管死亡、非致死性卒中及心衰风险下降。

核心结论

  • 德谷胰岛素起始治疗与甘精胰岛素相比,在试验合格和试验不合格人群中均一致观察到更低的全因死亡风险。
  • 试验合格队列中两组MACE风险相似,而试验不合格队列中德谷胰岛素MACE风险显著更低。

研究设计与样本

  • 利用瑞典全国健康登记数据开展的全国性观察性队列研究,包含国家糖尿病登记。
  • 纳入2012至2022年间起始德谷胰岛素或甘精胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者。
  • 采用两种互补的目标试验模拟方法:反映DEVOTE试验合格标准的模拟队列和反映常规临床实践的试验不合格模拟队列。
  • 共识别96 731例个体,其中44 890例符合研究合格标准并纳入分析。

主要发现

  • 试验合格队列中,德谷胰岛素与甘精胰岛素相比MACE风险相似(RR 1.10;95% CI 0.91–1.34;p=0.34)。
  • 试验合格队列中,德谷胰岛素全因死亡风险显著更低(RR 0.75;95% CI 0.62–0.92;p=0.002)。
  • 试验不合格模拟队列中,德谷胰岛素MACE风险更低(RR 0.80;95% CI 0.67–0.95;p=0.004)。
  • 试验不合格模拟队列中,德谷胰岛素还与全因死亡、心血管死亡、非致死性卒中和心力衰竭风险降低相关。

关键数值与推荐

  • 主要结局为MACE,包括心肌梗死、卒中和心血管死亡。
  • 次要结局包括MACE各组成事件、全因死亡和心力衰竭。
  • 平均治疗效应采用纵向目标最小损失估计(targeted minimum loss-based estimation)方法评估。

临床怎么用

  • 试验不合格常规临床人群中,起始德谷胰岛素相比甘精胰岛素可能带来更多心血管和死亡获益。
  • 试验合格人群中德谷胰岛素虽未显著降低MACE,但全因死亡风险显著下降,临床选择时可纳入考量。

以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。

原文

ABSTRACT Aims To compare cardiovascular outcomes associated with the initiation of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine using a target trial emulation approach in nationwide real-world data. Materials and Methods We conducted a nationwide observational cohort study using Swedish health registers, including the National Diabetes Register. Individuals with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin degludec or insulin glargine between 2012 and 2022 were included. Two complementary approaches were applied: a trial-eligible emulation cohort reflecting the eligibility criteria of the DEVOTE trial, and a trial-ineligible emulation cohort representing routine clinical practice. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular mortality). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of MACE, all-cause mortality and heart failure. Average treatment effects were estimated using longitudinal targeted minimum loss-based estimation. Results Among 96 731 individuals identified, 44 890 met the study eligibility criteria and were included in the analyses. In the trial-eligible cohort, degludec was associated with a similar risk of MACE compared with glargine (risk ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.91–1.34; p = 0.34), but a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62–0.92; p = 0.002). In the trial-ineligible emulation cohort, degludec was associated with lower risks of MACE (risk ratio: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.67–0.95; p = 0.004) as well as reduced risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal stroke and heart failure. Conclusions In this nationwide study, degludec was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with glargine, consistently observed in both trial-eligible and trial-ineligible populations, despite similar cardiovascular risk in the trial-eligible cohort.

来源:Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism,查看原文。版权归原作者所有。

引用

  1. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism:Cardiovascular Outcomes of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Trial‐Eligible and Ineligible Populations: A DEVOTE‐Inspired Target Trial Emulation Using the Swedish National Diabetes Register

供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。