Evidence Hub

Secondary analysis of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes subgroups and treatment responses in the MARCH cohort

Weihao Wang, Xinyao Li, Fei Chen, Ran Wei, Zhi Chen, Jingjing Li, Jingtao Qiao, Q. Pan et al.

Diabetes & metabolic syndrome, 2023

346 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate new clusters in the MARCH (Metformin and AcaRbose in Chinese patients as the initial Hypoglycemic treatment) cohort of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients and compare the anti-glycemic effects of metformin and acarbose across different clusters.

METHODS

K-means cluster analysis was performed based on six clinical indicators. The diabetic clusters in the MARCH cohort were retrospectively associated with the response to metformin and acarbose.

RESULTS

A total of 590 newly diagnosed T2D patients were classified by data-driven clusters into the MARD (mild obesity-related diabetes) (34.1 %), MOD (mild obesity-related diabetes) (34.1 %), SIDD (severe insulin-deficient diabetes) (20.3 %) and SIRD (severe insulin-resistant diabetes) (11.5 %) subgroups at baseline. At 24 and 48 weeks, 346 participants had finished the follow-up. After the adjustment of age, gender, weight, baseline HbA1c, baseline fasting glucose and 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG), metformin mainly decreased the fasting glucose (0.07 ± 0.89 vs -0.26 ± 0.83, P = 0.043) in the MARD subgroup presented with OGTT (oral glucose tolerance test) results compared with acarbose group at 24 weeks. Acarbose led to a greater decrease in 2hPG in the MOD subgroup compared with metformin group (0.08 ± 0.86 vs -0.24 ± 0.92, P = 0.037) at 24 weeks. There was a also significant interaction between cluster and treatment efficacy in HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) reduction in metformin and acarbose…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 346 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free