Effect of randomised blood pressure lowering treatment and intensive glucose control on dementia and cognitive decline according to baseline cognitive function and other subpopulations of individuals with type 2 diabetes: Results from the ADVANCE trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• In a study of over eleven thousand participants with Type 2 Diabetes, blood pressure lowering treatment (vs. placebo) was associated with a lower odds of dementia/cognitive decline in people with mild-severe cognitive impairment but not in those with normal cognition • Those with impaired glucose at baseline favoured intensive glucose control, though for those with normal glucose at baseline showed a tendency for standard control on the odds of dementia/ cognitive decline • For those with less than 10 years diabetes duration there was a tendency to favour intensive control and the converse for those with longer diabetes duration on the odds of dementia/ cognitive decline . : Accumulating evidence indicates that reducing high blood pressure (BP) prevents dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Furthermore, although diabetes is a risk factor for dementia and MCI, there is uncertainty of the effect of intensive glucose control on these endpoints. This study aimed to determine the effects of BP-lowering (vs placebo) and intensive glucose-lowering (vs standard control) treatments according to baseline cognition and other characteristics on dementia and cognitive decline (CD) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). : The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial involved 11,140 individuals with T2DM. The effects of BP-lowering and intensive glucose-lowering treatments were explored in subgroups of baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), categorised as cognitively normal (scores ≥28) and cognitive impairment (scores <28). The primary outcome was a composite of dementia/CD that accounted for the competing risk of death. Multinomial regression models, adjusted for common cardiovascular risk factors, were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the effects of the treatments on dementia/CD. Homogeneity of effects by subgroups were evaluated using interaction terms in the models. A two-sided p value less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. : BP-lowering treatment (vs. placebo) was associated with a lower odds of dementia/CD in participants with cognitive impairment (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.99) but not in those cognitively normal (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.21; p for interaction 0.03). Those with a history of cardio-renal-metabolic syndrome did not experience a benefit of active BP lowering treatment compared with placebo on dementia/CD. There were no further subgroup effects of BP-lowering treatment. The effect of intensive glucose lowering (vs standard control) on the odds of dementia/CD did not vary by baseline cognition subgroup. However, it did vary by level of blood glucose at baseline (<7.9 mmol/L OR 1.12, 95%CI 0.96-1.30 vs ≥ 7.9 mmol/L 0.87 (0.75-1.00); p for interaction 0.02) and duration of T2DM (<10 years OR 0.92 (0.81-1.05) vs ≥10 years 1.16 (0.97-1.38); p for interaction 0.04). : This study suggests greater effects of BP-lowering treatment in those with early loss of cognitive function than in those cognitively normal. There were also differential effects of intensive glucose-lowering on dementia and CD according to levels of blood glucose and duration of diabetes in people with T2DM. : ADVANCE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: number NCT00145925
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».