| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- McGuire, D. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Association of diabetes mellitus and glycemic control strategies with clinical outcomes after acute coronary syndromes
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Am Heart J. - 1097-6744. ; 147:2, s. 246-52
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with an increased risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) and its complications. The relative effect of glucose-lowering strategies of "insulin provision" versus "insulin sensitization" among patients with CAD remains unclear. METHODS: To evaluate the associations of diabetes and hypoglycemic strategies with clinical outcomes after acute coronary syndromes, we analyzed data from 15,800 patients enrolled in the SYMPHONY and 2nd SYMPHONY trials. RESULTS: Compared with nondiabetic patients, patients with diabetes (n = 3101; 19.6%) were older, more often female, more often had prior CAD, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, and less often were current smokers. The diabetic cohort had higher 90-day unadjusted risk of the composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI)/severe recurrent ischemia (SRI), death/MI, and death alone, as well as a near doubling of 1-year mortality rates. At 1 year, diabetes was associated with significantly higher adjusted risks of death/MI/SRI (OR, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.1, 1.5]) and death/MI (OR, 1.2 [1.0, 1.4]). Hypoglycemic therapy including only insulin and/or sulfonylurea (insulin-providing; n = 1473) was associated with higher 90-day death/MI/SRI compared with therapy that included only biguanide and/or thiazolidinedione therapy (insulin-sensitizing; n = 100) (12.0% vs 5.0%); (adjusted OR, 2.1 [1.2, 3.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes had worse clinical outcomes. Although the findings regarding the influence of glycemic-control strategies should be interpreted with caution because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the relatively small sample size of the insulin-sensitizing group, the improved risk-adjusted outcomes associated with insulin-sensitizing therapy underscore the need to further evaluate treatment strategies for patients with diabetes and CAD.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Aggett, PJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Nondigestible carbohydrates in the diets of infants and young children: A commentary by the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition - Jpgn. - 1536-4801. ; 36:3, s. 329-337
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The consumption of nondigestible carbohydrates is perceived as beneficial by health professionals and the general public, but the translation of this information into dietary practice, public health recommendations, and regulatory policy has proved difficult. Nondiaestible carbohydrates are a heterogeneous entity, and their definition is problematic. Without a means to characterize the dietary components associated with particular health benefits, specific attributions of these cannot be made. Food labeling for "fiber" constituents can be given only in a general context, and the development of health policy, dietary advice, and education, and informed public understanding of nondigestible carbohydrates are limited. There have, however, been several important developments in our thinking about nondigestible carbohydrates during the past few years. The concept of fiber has expanded to include a range of nondigestible carbohydrates. Their fermentation, fate, and effects in the colon have become a defining characteristic; human milk, hitherto regarded as devoid of nondigestible carbo-hydrates, is now recognized as a source for infants, and the inclusion of nondigestible carbohydrates in the diet has been promoted for their "prebiotic" effects. Therefore, a review of the importance of nondigestible carbohydrates in the diets of infants and young children is timely. The aims of this commentary are to clarify the current definitions of nondigestible carbohydrates, to review published evidence for their biochemical, physiologic, nutritional, and clinical effects, and to discuss issues involved in defining dietary guidelines for infants and young children. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams Wilkins, Inc.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
