| Literature DB >> 33113774 |
Mengyun Sui1, Long Xue1, Xiaohua Ying1.
Abstract
The prevalence and mortality rates of diabetes are increasing globally, posing severe challenges to health systems. Acupuncture is used worldwide as a non-drug treatment for diabetes. However, empirical evidence of the effect of combined acupuncture and drug treatments on diabetic-associated mortality is limited. This study aimed to examine this association of acupuncture treatment with mortality of type 2 diabetes based on real-world data. A four-year cohort study was conducted in Shanghai between 2015 and 2018, The database consisted of 37,718 patients (acupuncture group: 6865 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, non-acupuncture (control) group: 30,853 T2DM patients) in 2016. The objective was to analyze the impact of receiving acupuncture prescriptions for diabetes in 2016 on all-cause mortality in 2018 based on real-world data. An Inverse Probability Weighted Regression Adjustment (IPWRA) and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) were used to minimize the bias due to potential confounding variables to increase the reliability of differences in comparisons between the two groups. Our inverse probability weighted regression results suggest that the coefficient of the key dependent variable of accepted acupuncture in 2016 was negative (coefficient: -0.0002; 95% CI: -0.0024-0.0019, p = 0.857), but it is not statistically significant. In robustness check, PSM with the nearest-neighbor method with replacement at a 1:4 ratio and 1:3 ratio and kernel matching showed that the average treatment effect was negative. Therefore, there was a negative correlation between acupuncture combined with other drugs and the mortality of diabetic patients, but it was not statistically significant.Entities:
Keywords: acupuncture; diabetes mellitus; mortality; traditional Chinese medicine
Year: 2020 PMID: 33113774 PMCID: PMC7663761 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217801
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The sampling protocol of this study. TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.
Baseline characteristics of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in 2016.
| Characteristics | Acupuncture Group (N = 6865) | Non-Acupuncture Group (N = 30,853) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SE | 95%CI | Mean | SE | 95% CI | |
| Gender (%) | ||||||
| Male | 34.64 | 0.006 | 33.43–35.87 | 40.98 | 0.002 | 40.44–41.53 |
| Female | 65.35 | 0.006 | 64.13–66.57 | 59.01 | 0.002 | 58.46–59.56 |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| Mean | 70.04 | 0.125 | 69.79–70.28 | 67.91 | 0.057 | 67.79–68.02 |
| <60 | 9.96 | 0.003 | 9.27–10.69 | 19.29 | 0.002 | 18.85–19.73 |
| 60–69 | 33.38 | 0.006 | 32.28–34.51 | 38.79 | 0.003 | 38.25–39.34 |
| 70–79 | 25.53 | 0.005 | 24.51–26.58 | 27.09 | 0.003 | 26.60–27.59 |
| ≥80 | 31.11 | 0.006 | 30.03–32.22 | 14.81 | 0.002 | 14.42–15.21 |
| Residential location (%) | ||||||
| Urban | 44.22 | 0.006 | 42.95–45.49 | 34.93 | 0.002 | 34.39–35.46 |
| Suburban | 55.77 | 0.006 | 54.50–57.04 | 65.07 | 0.002 | 64.53–65.60 |
| Chronic (%) | ||||||
| 0 | 9.77 | 0.003 | 9.09–10.49 | 20.18 | 0.002 | 19.73–20.63 |
| 1 | 19.16 | 0.004 | 18.25–20.11 | 29.91 | 0.002 | 29.40–30.42 |
| 2 | 23.10 | 0.005 | 22.12–24.11 | 23.92 | 0.002 | 23.44–24.40 |
| ≥3 | 47.95 | 0.006 | 46.77–49.13 | 25.99 | 0.002 | 25.50–26.48 |
| Total cost (yuan) | ||||||
| Mean | 16,571.99 | 177.64 | 16,223.74–16,920.24 | 10,098.17 | 61.94 | 9976.74–10,219.60 |
| ≤2000 | 5.07 | 0.002 | 4.57–5.61 | 20.32 | 0.002 | 19.87–20.77 |
| 2001–7000 | 16.35 | 0.004 | 15.50–17.25 | 31.53 | 0.003 | 31.01–32.05 |
| 7001–15,000 | 29.30 | 0.005 | 28.24–30.39 | 27.76 | 0.003 | 27.26–28.26 |
| ≥15,001 | 49.26 | 0.006 | 48.08–50.44 | 20.39 | 0.002 | 19.94–20.84 |
| Outpatient visits | ||||||
| Number of primary-level hospitals | 39.51 | 0.355 | 38.81–40.21 | 26.63 | 0.135 | 26.36–26.90 |
| Number of secondary-level hospitals | 7.43 | 0.138 | 7.16–7.71 | 5.35 | 0.052 | 5.25–5.45 |
| Number of tertiary-level hospitals | 8.82 | 0.144 | 8.53–9.10 | 6.50 | 0.056 | 6.39–6.61 |
| Inpatient visits | ||||||
| Number of primary-level hospitals | 0.012 | 0.002 | 0.01–0.02 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.01–0.01 |
| Number of secondary-level hospitals | 0.278 | 0.012 | 0.25–0.30 | 0.145 | 0.003 | 0.13–0.15 |
| Number of tertiary-level hospitals | 0.271 | 0.010 | 0.25–0.29 | 0.149 | 0.003 | 0.14–1.56 |
| Total prescriptions of acupuncture | 3.26 | 0.062 | 3.14–3.38 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 |
Inverse probability weighted regression results.
| Death in 2018 | Coefficient | 95%CI | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treat 2016 | −0.0002 | −0.0024–0.0019 | 0.0011 | 0.857 |
| Gender (%) | ||||
| Male | 0.0040 *** | 0.0016–0.0064 | 0.0012 | 0.001 |
| Age (%) | ||||
| 60–69 | 0.0016 | −0.0005–0.0038 | 0.0011 | 0.140 |
| 70–79 | 0.0056 *** | 0.0030–0.0082 | 0.0013 | 0.000 |
| ≥80 | 0.0192 *** | 0.0144–0.0239 | 0.0024 | 0.000 |
| Chronic (%) | ||||
| 1 | 0.0004 | 0.0032–0.0024 | 0.0014 | 0.774 |
| 2 | 0.0003 | 0.0042–0.0035 | 0.0019 | 0.850 |
| ≥3 | 0.0025 | 0.0061–0.0008 | 0.0017 | 0.145 |
| Residential location (%) | ||||
| Urban | −0.0024 *** | −0.0046–−0.0003 | 0.0011 | 0.027 |
| Cost (%) | ||||
| 2001–7000 | 0.0050 *** | 0.0022–0.0007 | 0.0014 | 0.000 |
| 7001–15,000 | 0.0049 *** | 0.0019–0.0079 | 0.0015 | 0.001 |
| ≥15,001 | 0.0063 *** | 0.0029–0.0095 | 0.0016 | 0.000 |
| Constant | −0.0026 | −0.0055–0.0002 | 0.0014 | 0.075 |
*** p < 0.01, CI: Confidence Interval, SE: Standard Error.
Comparable characteristics between the two groups before and after matching.
| Characteristics | Before Matching | After Matching | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture Group | Non-Acupuncture Group | Acupuncture Group | Non-Acupuncture Group | |||
| Gender (%) | ||||||
| Male | 34.57 | 40.97 | <0.001 | 34.57 | 34.57 | 1.000 |
| Age (%) | ||||||
| 60–69 | 39.15 | 38.84 | 0.647 | 39.15 | 39.15 | 1.000 |
| 70–79 | 29.95 | 27.11 | <0.001 | 29.95 | 29.95 | 1.000 |
| ≥80 | 19.25 | 14.78 | <0.001 | 19.25 | 19.25 | 1.000 |
| Chronic (%) | ||||||
| 1 | 22.49 | 29.92 | <0.001 | 22.49 | 22.49 | 1.000 |
| 2 | 27.07 | 24.01 | <0.001 | 27.07 | 27.07 | 0.979 |
| ≥3 | 39.12 | 26.10 | <0.001 | 39.12 | 39.12 | 0.981 |
| Cost (%) | ||||||
| 2001–7000 | 19.13 | 31.61 | <0.001 | 19.13 | 19.13 | 1.000 |
| 7001–15,000 | 34.39 | 27.88 | <0.001 | 34.39 | 34.39 | 1.000 |
| ≥15,001 | 40.62 | 20.48 | <0.001 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 1.000 |
| Residential location (%) | ||||||
| Urban | 44.22 | 34.88 | <0.001 | 44.22 | 44.22 | 1.000 |
The average treatment effect of the three methods.
| Method | Coefficient | 95%CI | Standard Error | Z |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:4 PSM | −0.0014 | −0.0072, 0.0042 | 0.0029 | −0.51 | 0.611 |
| 1:3 PSM | −0.0034 | −0.0105, 0.0036 | 0.0036 | −0.95 | 0.344 |
| Kernel Matching | −0.0002 | −0.0022, −0.0016 | 0.0009 | −0.30 | 0.766 |
PSM: Propensity Score Matching.