Effects of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND—There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS—A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS—After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensivetherapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P = 0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P = 0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS—In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.

Lack of Longitudinal Association Between Thiazolidinediones and Incidence and Progression of Diabetic Eye Disease: The ACCORD Eye Study

Purpose: To report the longitudinal association between use of thiazolidinediones (TZDs), visual acuity (VA) change, and diabetic eye disease incidence and progression. Design: Cohort study ancillary to a randomized clinical trial. Methods: We analyzed baseline and 4-year follow-up data of 2856 ACCORD trial participants with no history of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Based on stereoscopic fundus photographs, we evaluated diabetic macular edema (DME) progression and DR progression. We also evaluated 10- and 15-letter change on the ETDRS visual acuity chart. Main outcome measures were incidence or progression of DME or DR and change in visual acuity. Results: TZD use was not associated with DME incidence in either the analysis of any use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% CI]: 1.22 [0.72–2.05]) or duration of use (aOR: 1.02 [0.99–1.04]). Diabetic retinopathy (DR) incidence/progression was more common in patients with no or mild DR at baseline who were ever treated with TZDs (aOR: 1.68 [1.11–2.55]), but this association disappeared when adjusting for the time on TZD (aOR: 1.02 [1.00–1.04]). DR progression among those with moderate or worse DR at baseline was no different between TZD users and non-users. TZD usage had no effect on the ultimate visual acuity outcome. Conclusion: In this longitudinal study of patients with type 2 diabetes, we found no association between TZD use and visual acuity outcomes or DME progression, and no consistent evidence of increased DR progression in patients ever treated with TZDs vs those never treated with TZDs

The Causes and Consequences of Low Levels of High Density Lipoproteins in Patients with Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is commonly accompanied by a low level of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) that contributes to the increased cardiovascular risk associated with this condition. Given that HDLs have the ability to improve increase the uptake of glucose by skeletal muscle and to stimulate the secretion of insulin from pancreatic beta cells the possibility arises that a low HDL concentration in type 2 diabetes may also contribute to a worsening of diabetic control. Thus, there is a double case for raising the level of HDL-C in patients with type 2 diabetes: to reduce cardiovascular risk and to improve glycemic control. Approaches to raising HDL-C include lifestyle factors such as weight reduction, increased physical activity and stopping smoking. Of currently available drugs, the most effective is niacin. Newer formulations of niacin are reasonably well tolerated and have the ability to increase HDL-C by up to 30%. The effect of niacin on cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes is currently being tested in a large-scale clinical outcome trial

Evolving targets for lipid-modifying therapy

Published online: August 29, 2014The pathogenesis and progression of atherosclerosis are integrally connected to the concentration and function of lipoproteins in various classes. This review examines existing and emerging approaches to modify low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein (a), triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, and high-density lipoproteins, emphasizing approaches that have progressed to clinical evaluation. Targeting of nuclear receptors and phospholipases is also discussed.Rose Q Do, Stephen J Nicholls and Gregory G Schwart

Cardiovascular risk factors and incident albuminuria in screen-detected type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether cardiovascular risk factor modification influences the development of renal disease in people with type 2 diabetes identified through screening. We determined predictors of albuminuria five years after a diagnosis of screen-detected diabetes within the ADDITION-Europe study, a pragmatic cardiovascular outcome trial of multifactorial cardiovascular risk management. METHODS: In 1,826 participants with newly diagnosed, screen-detected diabetes without albumiuria, we explored associations between risk of new albuminuria (≥2.5 mg mmol(-1) males and ≥3.5 mg mmol(-1) females) and: 1) baseline cardio-metabolic risk factors and 2) changes from baseline to one year in systolic blood pressure (∆SBP) and glycated haemoglobin (∆HbA1c ) using logistic regression. RESULTS: Albuminuria developed in 268 (15%) participants; baseline body mass index and active smoking were independently associated with new onset albuminuria in the five years after detection of diabetes. In a model adjusted for age, gender, and baseline HbA1c and blood pressure, a 1% decrease in HbA1c and 5 mmHg decrease in SBP during the first year were independently associated with lower risks of albuminuria (Odds Ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.62 to 0.91 and 0.94, 0.88 to 1.01, respectively). Further adjustment did not materially change these estimates. There was no interaction between ΔSBP and ΔHBA1c in relation to albuminuria risk, suggesting likely additive effects on renal microvascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline measurements and changes in HbA1c and SBP a year after diagnosis of diabetes through screening independently associate with new onset albuminuria four years later. Established multifactorial treatment for diabetes applies to cases identified through screening.Individual centres in Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were responsible for funding. ADDITION-Denmark has been given unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk AS, Novo Nordisk Scandinavia AB, Novo Nordisk U.K., AstraZeneca Denmark, Pfizer Denmark, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma Denmark, Servier Denmark A/S, and HemoCue Denmark A/S. Part of the grant from Novo Nordisk was transferred to the other centers. ADDITIONNetherlands was supported by unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck. ADDITION-Cambridge was supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant reference no: G061895) and the Medical Research Council (grant reference no: G0001164), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (grantcare.diabetesjournals.org Sandbæk and Associates 2021 reference no: 08/116/300), and National Health Service research and development support funding (including the Primary Care Research and DiabetesResearch Networks), and the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0606-1259). ADDITION-Leicester was supported by the Department of Health and Support for Sciences, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference no: 08/116/300), National Health Service research and development support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Collaborative for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care) and the NIHR Leicester Loughborough Lifestyle Biomedical Research Unit. ADDITION-Netherlands was supported by the Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht and by unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk and Glaxo Smith Kline