BACKGROUND: A recently halted clinical trial showed that intensive treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus was associated with increased mortality. Given the phenotypic heterogeneity of diabetes, therapy targeted at insulin status may maximize benefits and minimize harm. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we followed 503 patients with type 2 diabetes who were free of cardiovascular disease from 1996 until data on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes were censored in 2005. Phenotype-targeted therapy was defined as use of insulin therapy in patients with a fasting plasma C peptide level of 0.2 nmol/L or less and no insulin therapy in patients with higher C peptide levels. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 54.4 (standard deviation 13.1) years, and 56% were women. The mean duration of diabetes was 4.6 years (range 0-35.9 years). Of the 503 patients, 110 (21.9%) had a low C peptide level and 111 (22.1%) were given insulin. Based on their C peptide status, 338 patients (67.2%) received phenotype-targeted therapy (non-insulin-treated, high C peptide level [n = 310] or insulin-treated, low C peptide level [n = 28]), and 165 patients (32.8%) received non-phenotype-targeted therapy (non-insulin-treated, low C peptide level [n = 82] or insulin-treated, high C peptide level [n = 83]). Compared with the insulin-treated, low-C-peptide referent group, the insulin-treated, high-C-peptide group was at a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 2.85, p = 0.049) and death (HR 3.43, p = 0.043); the risk was not significantly higher in the other 2 groups. These differences were no longer significant after adjusting for age, sex and diabetes duration. INTERPRETATION: Patients with low C peptide levels who received insulin had the best clinical outcomes. Patients with normal to high C peptide levels who received insulin had the worst clinical outcomes. The results suggest that phenotype-targeted insulin therapy may be important in treating diabetes.
BACKGROUND: A recently halted clinical trial showed that intensive treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus was associated with increased mortality. Given the phenotypic heterogeneity of diabetes, therapy targeted at insulin status may maximize benefits and minimize harm. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we followed 503 patients with type 2 diabetes who were free of cardiovascular disease from 1996 until data on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes were censored in 2005. Phenotype-targeted therapy was defined as use of insulin therapy in patients with a fasting plasma C peptide level of 0.2 nmol/L or less and no insulin therapy in patients with higher C peptide levels. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 54.4 (standard deviation 13.1) years, and 56% were women. The mean duration of diabetes was 4.6 years (range 0-35.9 years). Of the 503 patients, 110 (21.9%) had a low C peptide level and 111 (22.1%) were given insulin. Based on their C peptide status, 338 patients (67.2%) received phenotype-targeted therapy (non-insulin-treated, high C peptide level [n = 310] or insulin-treated, low C peptide level [n = 28]), and 165 patients (32.8%) received non-phenotype-targeted therapy (non-insulin-treated, low C peptide level [n = 82] or insulin-treated, high C peptide level [n = 83]). Compared with the insulin-treated, low-C-peptide referent group, the insulin-treated, high-C-peptide group was at a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 2.85, p = 0.049) and death (HR 3.43, p = 0.043); the risk was not significantly higher in the other 2 groups. These differences were no longer significant after adjusting for age, sex and diabetes duration. INTERPRETATION:Patients with low C peptide levels who received insulin had the best clinical outcomes. Patients with normal to high C peptide levels who received insulin had the worst clinical outcomes. The results suggest that phenotype-targeted insulin therapy may be important in treating diabetes.
Authors: J B Meigs; M A Mittleman; D M Nathan; G H Tofler; D E Singer; P M Murphy-Sheehy; I Lipinska; R B D'Agostino; P W Wilson Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Antonio Ceriello; Markolf Hanefeld; Lawrence Leiter; Louis Monnier; Alan Moses; David Owens; Naoko Tajima; Jaakko Tuomilehto Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-10-25
Authors: W B Chan; P C Y Tong; C C Chow; W Y So; M C Y Ng; R C W Ma; R Osaki; C S Cockram; J C N Chan Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Gary T Ko; Wing-Yee So; Peter C Tong; Francois Le Coguiec; Debborah Kerr; Greg Lyubomirsky; Beaver Tamesis; Troels Wolthers; Jennifer Nan; Juliana Chan Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Baoqi Fan; Hongjiang Wu; Mai Shi; Aimin Yang; Eric S H Lau; Claudia H T Tam; Dandan Mao; Cadmon K P Lim; Alice P S Kong; Ronald C W Ma; Elaine Chow; Andrea O Y Luk; Juliana C N Chan Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 8.128
Authors: Lee Ling Lim; Amy W C Fu; Eric S H Lau; Risa Ozaki; Kitty K T Cheung; Ronald C W Ma; Andrea O Y Luk; Juliana C N Chan; Alice P S Kong Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.992