scholarly journals Evaluation of the HbA1c Reduction Cut Point for a Nonglycemic Effect on Cardiovascular Benefit of Hypoglycemic Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Endpoint Events

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuchao Wu ◽  
Lizhi Tang ◽  
Fang Zhang ◽  
Zhe Yan ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Hypoglycemic Agents ◽  
Intensive Glucose Control ◽  
Very High ◽  
Cardiovascular Benefit

Background. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a major cause of death among patients with diabetes but can be improved by certain hypoglycemic agents. However, adjudicating criteria on whether improvements are a glycemic or nonglycemic effect of these agents remain unclear. Methods. Hypoglycemic agents that produce a cardiovascular benefit in nondiabetic patients are considered to do so via a nonglycemic effect. We performed a subgroup analysis for primary and secondary prevention or very high risk of ASCVD in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Where glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was reduced to the same extent in a head-to-head comparison, cardiovascular benefits were judged as a nonglycemic effect. Furthermore, by analyzing the endpoints of four important randomized controlled intensive glucose control studies, UKPDS33, ADVANCE, ACCORD, and VADT, we calculated the cut point of HbA1c reduction for a nonglycemic effect on cardiovascular benefit by hypoglycemic agents in ASCVD groups of different severities. Results. For the ASCVD primary prevention group of T2DM, UKPDS33 indicated a reduction in HbA1c < 0.9%, and a cardiovascular benefit within 10 years was considered a nonglycemic effect. For ASCVD secondary prevention or in the very high-risk group, pioglitazone exerted a nonglycemic effect on cardiovascular benefit in nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance; metformin may exert a similar effect in T2DM patients in a head-to-head study. Analysis of T2DM intensive glucose control studies showed a reduction in HbA1c of <1.0%, and a cardiovascular benefit after approximately 5 years was deemed a nonglycemic effect. Conclusions. For ASCVD primary prevention in T2DM, a reduction in HbA1c < 0.9% and a cardiovascular benefit within 10 years were considered a nonglycemic effect. For ASCVD secondary prevention or in a very high-risk population, a reduction in HbA1c < 1.0% and a cardiovascular benefit within about 5 years were also considered a nonglycemic effect.

scholarly journals Polygenic risk scores predict diabetes complications and their response to intensive blood pressure and glucose control

Diabetologia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanne Tremblay ◽  
Mounsif Haloui ◽  
Redha Attaoua ◽  
Ramzan Tahir ◽  
Camil Hishmih ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Polygenic Risk ◽  
Renal Complications ◽  
Intensive Blood Pressure

Abstract Aims/hypothesis Type 2 diabetes increases the risk of cardiovascular and renal complications, but early risk prediction could lead to timely intervention and better outcomes. Genetic information can be used to enable early detection of risk. Methods We developed a multi-polygenic risk score (multiPRS) that combines ten weighted PRSs (10 wPRS) composed of 598 SNPs associated with main risk factors and outcomes of type 2 diabetes, derived from summary statistics data of genome-wide association studies. The 10 wPRS, first principal component of ethnicity, sex, age at onset and diabetes duration were included into one logistic regression model to predict micro- and macrovascular outcomes in 4098 participants in the ADVANCE study and 17,604 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank study. Results The model showed a similar predictive performance for cardiovascular and renal complications in different cohorts. It identified the top 30% of ADVANCE participants with a mean of 3.1-fold increased risk of major micro- and macrovascular events (p = 6.3 × 10−21 and p = 9.6 × 10−31, respectively) and a 4.4-fold (p = 6.8 × 10−33) higher risk of cardiovascular death. While in ADVANCE overall, combined intensive blood pressure and glucose control decreased cardiovascular death by 24%, the model identified a high-risk group in whom it decreased the mortality rate by 47%, and a low-risk group in whom it had no discernible effect. High-risk individuals had the greatest absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 12 to prevent one cardiovascular death over 5 years. Conclusions/interpretation This novel multiPRS model stratified individuals with type 2 diabetes according to risk of complications and helped to target earlier those who would receive greater benefit from intensive therapy. Graphical abstract

scholarly journals Clinical profiles and quality of care of subjects with type 2 diabetes according to their cardiovascular risk: an observational, retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Basilio Pintaudi ◽  
Alessia Scatena ◽  
Gabriella Piscitelli ◽  
Vera Frison ◽  
Salvatore Corrao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽  
High Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recently defined cardiovascular risk classes for subjects with diabetes. Aim of this study was to explore the distribution of subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by cardiovascular risk groups according to the ESC classification and to describe the quality indicators of care, with particular regard to cardiovascular risk factors. Methods The study is based on data extracted from electronic medical records of patients treated at the 258 Italian diabetes centers participating in the AMD Annals initiative. Patients with T2D were stratified by cardiovascular risk. General descriptive indicators, measures of intermediate outcomes, intensity/appropriateness of pharmacological treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, presence of other complications and overall quality of care were evaluated. Results Overall, 473,740 subjects with type 2 diabetes (78.5% at very high cardiovascular risk, 20.9% at high risk and 0.6% at moderate risk) were evaluated. Among people with T2D at very high risk: 26.4% had retinopathy, 39.5% had albuminuria, 18.7% had a previous major cardiovascular event, 39.0% had organ damage, 89.1% had three or more risk factors. The use of DPP4-i markedly increased as cardiovascular risk increased. The prescription of secretagogues also increased and that of GLP1-RAs tended to increase. The use of SGLT2-i was still limited, and only slightly higher in subjects with very high cardiovascular risk. The overall quality of care, as summarized by the Q score, tended to be lower as the level of cardiovascular risk increased. Conclusions A large proportion of subjects with T2D is at high or very high risk. Glucose-lowering drug therapies seem not to be adequately used with respect to their potential advantages in terms of cardiovascular risk reduction. Several actions are necessary to improve the quality of care.

scholarly journals Appropriateness of aspirin prescribing for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes in different care settings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shi Ying Tan ◽  
Heather Cronin ◽  
Stephen Byrne ◽  
Adrian O’Donovan ◽  
Antoinette Tuthill
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Use of aspirin has been shown to be of benefit for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes; benefits in primary prevention have not been clearly proven. Aims This study aims to (a) determine if aspirin is prescribed appropriately in type 2 diabetes for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and (b) evaluate whether there are differences in aspirin prescribing according to where people receive their care. Design Cross-sectional study Methods The medical records of individuals with type 2 diabetes aged over 18 years and attending Elmwood Primary Care Centre and Cork University Hospital Diabetes outpatient clinics (n = 400) between February and August 2017 were reviewed. Results There were 90 individuals exclusively attending primary care and 310 persons attending shared care. Overall, 49.0% (n = 196) of those were prescribed aspirin, of whom 42.3% were using it for secondary prevention. Aspirin was used significantly more in people attending shared care (p < 0.001). About 10.8% of individuals with diabetes and CVD attending shared care met guidelines for, but were not prescribed aspirin. Conclusion A significant number of people with type 2 diabetes who should have been prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention were not receiving it at the time of study assessment. In contrast, a substantial proportion who did not meet criteria for aspirin use was prescribed it for primary prevention.

scholarly journals Association between refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications and the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a nationwide cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Axia Karlsson ◽  
Christel Hero ◽  
Ann-Marie Svensson ◽  
Stefan Franzén ◽  
Mervete Miftaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Refill Adherence

ObjectivesTo analyse the association between refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications, and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.DesignCohort study.SettingNational population-based cohort of Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Participants86 568 patients aged ≥18 years, registered with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Swedish National Diabetes Register, who filled at least one prescription for lipid-lowering medication use during 2007–2010, 87% for primary prevention.Exposure and outcome measuresRefill adherence of implementation was assessed using the medication possession ratio (MPR), representing the proportion of days with medications on hand during an 18-month exposure period. MPR was categorised by five levels (≤20%, 21%–40%, 41%–60%, 61%–80% and >80%). Patients without medications on hand for ≥180 days were defined as non-persistent. Risk of CVD (myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and unstable angina) and mortality by level of MPR and persistence was analysed after the exposure period using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier, adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic status, concurrent medications and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe hazard ratios for CVD ranged 1.33–2.36 in primary prevention patients and 1.19–1.58 in secondary prevention patients, for those with MPR ≤80% (p<0.0001). The mortality risk was similar regardless of MPR level. The CVD risk was 74% higher in primary prevention patients and 33% higher in secondary prevention patients, for those who were non-persistent (p<0.0001). The mortality risk was 6% higher in primary prevention patients and 18% higher in secondary prevention patients, for non-persistent patients (p<0.0001).ConclusionsHigher refill adherence to lipid-lowering medications was associated with lower risk of CVD in primary and secondary prevention patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

scholarly journals Patterns of Adherence to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents and Glucose Control among Primary Care Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather F. de Vries McClintock ◽  
Knashawn H. Morales ◽  
Dylan S. Small ◽  
Hillary R. Bogner
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Hypoglycemic Agents ◽  
Oral Hypoglycemic Agents ◽  
Primary Care Patients

Impact of ethnicity and obesity on insulin resistance in two ethnic groups at very high risk of type 2 diabetes

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Hassoun ◽  
M. Al-Atrash ◽  
M. Alkasim ◽  
Z. Dabbous ◽  
O. Mujahed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Insulin Resistance ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Very High

Abstract 190: Use of Intensive Glycemic Management in Older Adults With Diabetes. An Analysis From the Diabetes Collaborative Registry

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne V Arnold ◽  
Kasia J Lipska ◽  
Jingyan Wang ◽  
Leo Seman ◽  
Sanjeev N Mehta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Tight Control ◽  
Poor Control ◽  
Intensively Managed

Background: Older adults with diabetes are less likely to benefit and more likely to be harmed by intensive glucose control. Prior research has shown that many older adults continue to be intensively managed despite guidelines that recommend that treatment targets should be relaxed in these patients. As many new agents have been introduced with minimal risk of hypoglycemia, we examined contemporary data to understand to what extent older patients with diabetes are still intensively managed with agents that can cause hypoglycemia. Methods: We examined A1c and treatment data in adults ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes from 151 US outpatient sites in DCR. Patients were categorized as poor control (A1c >9%), moderate control (A1c >8-9%), conservative control (A1c 7-8%), tight control/low-risk agents (A1c <7% on meds with low risk for hypoglycemia), and tight control/high-risk agents (A1c <7% on insulin, sulfonylureas, or meglitinides). Adults with A1c <7% on no glucose-lowering medications were excluded. We used hierarchical logistic regression to examine patient and site factors associated with tight control/high-risk agents vs. conservative control or tight control/low-risk agents. Results: Among 30,696 older adults with diabetes, 5,596 (18%) had moderate or poor control, 9,227 (30%) conservative control, 7,893 (26%) tight control/low-risk agents, and 7,980 (26%) tight control/high-risk agents (Fig. A). Older age, male sex, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease were each independently associated with a greater odds of tight control/high-risk agents (Fig. B). After adjusting for patient factors, there were no differences among practice specialties (endocrinology, primary care, cardiology) in how aggressively patients were managed. Conclusion: Despite greater availability of agents that do not cause hypoglycemia, a quarter of older adults with type 2 diabetes are tightly controlled with high-risk medications. These results suggest potential overtreatment of a substantial proportion of patients. Efforts are needed to provide more specific guidance on how to safely treat older adults with diabetes (both through targeting treatment with low-risk agents and through de-escalation of glucose control) and then to efficiently translate that guidance into busy clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document