Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22679516›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Differential effects of comorbidity on antihypertensive and glucose-regulating treatment in diabetes mellitus--a cohort study.

Jaco Voorham, Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp, Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel, Dick de Zeeuw, Ronald P Stolk, Petra Denig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. The impact of concordant and discordant comorbidities on patient-assessed quality of diabetes care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Blood pressure, vessel caliber, and retinal thickness in diabetes.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jaco VoorhamDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medical Science, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.voorham@umcg.nl
Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp
Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel
Dick de Zeeuw
Ronald P Stolk
Petra Denig

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComorbidity is often mentioned as interfering with "optimal" treatment decisions in diabetes care. It is suggested that diabetes-related comorbidity will increase adequate treatment, whereas diabetes-unrelated comorbidity may decrease this process of care. We hypothesized that these effects differ according to expected priority of the conditions.

methodsWe evaluated the relationship between comorbidity and treatment intensification in a study of 11,248 type 2 diabetes patients using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. We formed a cohort of patients with a systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg (6,820 hypertensive diabetics), and a cohort of patients with an HbA1c ≥ 7% (3,589 hyperglycemic diabetics) in 2007. We differentiated comorbidity by diabetes-related or unrelated conditions and by priority. High priority conditions include conditions that are life-interfering, incident or requiring new medication treatment. We performed Cox regression analyses to assess association with treatment intensification, defined as dose increase, start, or addition of drugs.

resultsIn both the hypertensive and hyperglycemic cohort, only patients with incident diabetes-related comorbidity had a higher chance of treatment intensification (HR 4.48, 2.33-8.62 (p<0.001) for hypertensives; HR 2.37, 1.09-5.17 (p = 0.030) for hyperglycemics). Intensification of hypertension treatment was less likely when a new glucose-regulating drug was prescribed (HR 0.24, 0.06-0.97 (p = 0.046)). None of the prevalent or unrelated comorbidity was significantly associated with treatment intensification.

conclusionsDiabetes-related comorbidity induced better risk factor treatment only for incident cases, implying that appropriate care is provided more often when complications occur. Diabetes-unrelated comorbidity did not affect hypertension or hyperglycemia management, even when it was incident or life-interfering. Thus, the observed "undertreatment" in diabetes care cannot be explained by constraints caused by such comorbidity.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsCohort StudiesDiabetes MellitusHypertensionHypoglycemic AgentsProportional Hazards ModelsAntihypertensive AgentsHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID22679516
PMCPMC3367971

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.