Pharmacologic Prevention of Microvascular and Macrovascular Complications in Diabetes Mellitus
- 511 Downloads
Observational epidemiologic data indicate that lower blood glucose levels, blood pressure (BP), and lipid parameters are associated with a lower incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications in people with diabetes. While no threshold for this effect is discernible in these observational studies, intervention studies do not mirror this finding. The earliest glycemia target study in type 2 diabetes mellitus, UKPDS, demonstrated unequivocal benefits of tight glucose control on microvascular complications, but needed a prolonged follow-up to demonstrate a benefit on macrovascular outcomes and mortality. Recently, three major studies, ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT, evaluated the impact of attaining euglycemia (ACCORD) or near-euglycemia (ADVANCE, VADT) in older patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular (CV) risk. None of these studies, either individually or on pooled analysis, demonstrated any reduction in all-cause or CV mortality, although the meta-analyses revealed 15–17% reductions in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction in those exposed to tight glucose control. A higher mortality was observed in the intensive glucose control arm of ACCORD, resulting in the premature termination of the glucose-lowering component of this study. Also, the occurrence of hypoglycemic episodes (total and major) was significantly higher in the intensive glucose control arm.
ADVANCE and ACCORD also had BP-lowering components. While data from ADVANCE demonstrated a benefit of routine use of a combination of perindopril and indapamide, with a decline in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and new-onset microalbuminuria, reducing systolic BP to <120 mmHg in ACCORD did not result in any incremental benefits over a systolic BP <140 mmHg.
A residual CV risk observed in people with diabetes even after low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering has led to trials evaluating additional therapy with fibric acid derivatives to reduce triglyceride levels. The lipid-lowering arm of ACCORD failed to demonstrate any benefit of add-on therapy with fibric acid derivatives to LDL-lowering treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on vascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. However, data from earlier studies, and also from the subgroup analysis of ACCORD, indicate a probable benefit of adding treatment with fibric acid derivatives to individuals with persistently elevated triglyceride levels despite statin therapy.
The most compelling evidence comes from studies assessing the impact of multiple risk factors — glucose, BP, and cholesterol. Studies like the Steno study unequivocally demonstrate the benefit of aggressive control of all three parameters on vascular outcomes in patients with diabetes.
In conclusion, attempts to achieve euglycemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes with co-morbidities are not associated with any survival benefit, but may reduce the occurrence of non-fatal CV events. There is a significant risk of major hypoglycemia with this approach, thereby probably limiting its utility to younger patients with new-onset disease. Similarly, lowering systolic BP below 120 mmHg in high CV risk people with diabetes is associated with significant excess adverse events, limiting the utility of such an intervention. However, a clear benefit, which is also cost effective, is observed with strategies for multiple risk-factor control, which should be universally adopted in clinical practice.
KeywordsBlood Pressure Control Fibric Acid Derivative Tight Glucose Control Intensive Glucose Control Tight Blood Pressure Control
Nikhil Tandon was National Co-Principal Investigator (India), Site Principal Investigator and Glucose Control Consultant (India) for ADVANCE. M.K. Ali is part of a post hoc writing group evaluating cost and health-related quality of life for the ACCORD trial. K.M. Venkat Narayan was previously a member of the Executive Committee and Committee of Investigators for the ACCORD trial.
The views expressed by the authors in this manuscript are personal and are entirely based on published information.
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.
- 5.Sarwar N, Aspelund T, Eiriksdottir G, et al. Markers of dysglycemia and risk of coronary heart disease in people without diabetes: Reykjavik prospective study and systematic review. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000728.Google Scholar
- 30.Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, et al. The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4909. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4909.Google Scholar
- 31.Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, et al. The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ 2009; 339: b5444. doi: 10.1136/bmj. b5444.Google Scholar
- 52.Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9.Google Scholar
- 60.Scott R, O’Brien R, Fulcher G, et al. Effects of fenofibrate treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in 9,795 individuals with type 2 diabetes and various components of the metabolic syndrome: the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 493–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Lauritzen T, Griffin S, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care. The ADDITION study: proposed trial of the cost-effectiveness of an intensive multifactorial intervention on morbidity and mortality among people with Type 2 diabetes detected by screening. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000 Sep; 24 Suppl. 3: S6–11.Google Scholar