Re: [討論] 關於蛋白尿首選藥物

看板medstudent作者 (哇哈哈)時間11年前 (2012/11/28 18:33), 編輯推噓1(105)
留言6則, 2人參與, 最新討論串3/10 (看更多)
: : → hahawow:聽說降低蛋白尿不一定能減緩腎功能惡化..... 11/28 17:08 : 對糖尿病的尿蛋白,目前認為降低蛋白尿,可減緩腎功能惡化; : 其它種類的,證據則較弱 Kidney Int. 2012 Mar;81(6):586-94. Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients. ACCORD Study Group. Abstract A reduction of either blood pressure or glycemia decreases some microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes, and we studied here their combined effects. In total, 4733 older adults with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure less than 140 mm Hg) blood pressure control, and separately to intensive (HbA1c less than 0.060) or standard (HbA1c 0.070-0.079) glycemic control. Prespecified microvascular outcomes were a composite of renal failure and retinopathy and nine single outcomes. Proportional hazard regression models were used without correction for type I error due to multiple tests. During a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of intensive and 10.9% of standard blood pressure patients (hazard ratio 1.08), and in 11.1% of intensive and 11.2% of standard glycemia control patients. Intensive blood pressure control only reduced the incidence of microalbuminuria (hazard ratio 0.84), and intensive glycemic control reduced the incidence of macroalbuminuria and a few other microvascular outcomes. There was no interaction between blood pressure and glycemic control, and neither treatment prevented renal failure. Thus, in older patients with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension, intensive blood pressure control improved only 1 of 10 prespecified microvascular outcomes. None of the outcomes were significantly reduced by simultaneous intensive treatment of glycemia and blood pressure, signifying the lack of an additional beneficial effect from combined treatment. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ※ 編輯: hahawow 來自: 123.192.237.38 (11/28 18:38)

11/28 18:54, , 1F
intervention study好像有些有,有些沒有正面結果
11/28 18:54, 1F

11/28 19:00, , 2F
ONTARGET併用組reduces proteinuria,卻惡化腎功能
11/28 19:00, 2F

11/28 19:00, , 3F
雖然有人在去事後分析albuminuria者renal outcome較差
11/28 19:00, 3F

11/28 19:01, , 4F
但那卻可能是observation result而非intervention結果
11/28 19:01, 4F

11/28 19:48, , 5F
不是這樣看~有點複雜啦~~~簡單講,尚無class A證據
11/28 19:48, 5F

11/28 19:49, , 6F
要找的目標不是BP控制的研究,而是專注在降尿蛋白的研究
11/28 19:49, 6F
最有證據力的研究方法是找出一群有DM with proteinuria的病人,分為兩組 然後實驗組採取降蛋白尿的措施,然後再分析renal outcome 不過目前好像沒這種大規模prospective study 那就只能從現有大規模study中去找尋具有類似作用的study, 但當我們面對病人時,我們面對的是是否該採取某種intervention, 所以精神仍舊應該是在比較intervention與否對outcome影響, DM proteinuria目前建議的處理不外乎ACEI/ARB(/DRI?), 降血壓, 降血糖 要比較intervetion與否的差異,當然去找以DM為population, 而且intervention組有ACEI/ARB(/DRI?), 降血壓, 降血糖的study 從中找出一entry時有proteinuria的病人,然後比較這群病人後來的renal outcome, ACCORD算是非常大型的RCT,而且不是個別廠商主導, 按理講randomization應該不會有太大問題, 兩組之間的proteinuria比率差異應該是來自intervention無誤, 而這樣的差異卻沒有反應在renal outcome上面, 會讓個人懷疑降蛋白尿這件事與renal outcome之間的因果關聯 至於裡面是否有retrospective prospective挑出proteinuria的病人來分析, abstract中沒寫,那篇也非免費文章...... 我沒看到level A evidence證明,特別如此大規模study都還做不出結果, 所以只能說降低蛋白尿*[31;1m不一定*[37;0m能減緩腎功能惡化..... 上面是 Type 2 DM,那Type 1 DM呢? 那來看看DCCT/EDIC的分析 Long-term renal outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes and microalbuminuria: an analysis of the DCCT/EDIC cohort http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085024/ Intensive diabetes therapy, glycemia, and long-term renal outcomes Adjusting for age, gender, and duration of diabetes, hazard ratios associated with intensive diabetes therapy were 0.64 for progression to macroalbuminuria (95% confidence interval 0.40, 1.02), 0.65 for impaired GFR (0.36, 1.16), and 1.92 for regression to normoalbuminuria (1.28, 2.86), p<0.05 for regression only (Table 3). Further adjusting for BMI and use of RAAS inhibitors and lipid-lowering medications, hazard ratios associated with intensive diabetes therapy were 0.61 for progression to macroalbuminuria (0.38, 0.98), 0.64 for impaired GFR (0.35, 1.17), and 2.16 for regression to normoalbuminuria (1.43, 3.26). 做了那麼多年CI都還跨1.00,而他這個PMA(Persistent microalbuminuria) cohort 也並非以entry即有MA來抓人, This study focuses on 325 DCCT/EDIC participants who developed incident persistent microalbuminuria (PMA) during the course of DCCT/EDIC Study observation. 意即裡面混有非intervention因素產生的microalbuminuria病人 ※ 編輯: hahawow 來自: 123.192.237.38 (11/29 12:57)
文章代碼(AID): #1GjUXSCY (medstudent)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1GjUXSCY (medstudent)