Call Girl Lucknow Mallika 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Lucknow
ueda2012 glycemic control cvd debate f-d.khalifa
1. Does Tight Glycemic Control
Improve CV Diabetic Complications?
Khalifa Abdallah
Prof. of Internal Medicine
Diabetes, Metabolism & Lipidology Unit
Alexandria Faculty of Medicine
No
2. UKPDS: elevated blood glucose levels
increase the risk of diabetic complications
Study population: White, Asian Indian and Afro-Caribbean UKPDS patients (n = 4,585)
Adjusted for age, sex and ethnic group
Error bars = 95% CI Adapted from Stratton IM, et al. BMJ 2000; 321:405–412.
20
40
60
80
Incidence per
1,000 patient-years
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Myocardial
infarction
Microvascular
disease
Updated mean HbA1c (%)
0
0
HbA1c
≤6.5%
3. Intensive vs. conventional management
Time from randomization (years)
MedianA1C(%)
Conventional Treatment (n=1138)
Intensive Treatment (n=2729)
9
8
7
6
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
{0.9%
Adapted from UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352:837-853.
UKPDSUKPDS
4. NS = not significant; PVD = peripheral vascular disease.
*Per 1000 patient-years.
**Combined microvascular and macrovascular events.
Adapted from United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group (UKPDS) Lancet 1998;352:837-853.
Intensive Glucose Control Significantly
Reduced Microvascular Disease
Rate*
Conventional Intensive
glucose glucose
control control % Risk
(n=2729) (n=1138) reduction p
Macrovascular events
• MI 17.4 14.7 16
0.052
• Stroke 5.0 5.6 –11
NS
• PVD 1.6 1.1 35
NS
• Diabetes-related death 11.5 10.4 10
NS
• All-cause mortality 18.9 17.9 6
NS
Microvascular events 11.4 8.6 25
0.0099
All events** 46.0 40.9 12
0.029
5. 57% risk reduction
in non-fatal MI, stroke or CVD death*
(P = 0.02; 95% CI: 12–79%)
Cumulativeincidence
of
non-fatalMI,strokeor
deathfromCVD
Conventional
treatment
Intensive
treatment
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Adapted from DCCT. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:977–986. DCCT/EDIC. JAMA 2002; 287:2563–2569.
DCCT/EDIC. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2643–2653.
DCCT/EDIC: glycaemic control reduces the risk of non-
fatal MI, stroke or death from CVD in type 1 diabetes
0
7
1 6
HbA1C(%)
9
8
2 3 4 5 7 8 9
Conventional treatment
Intensive treatment
11 12 13 14 15 16 1710
*Intensive vs conventional treatment
DCCT (intervention period EDIC (observational follow-up)
DCCT (intervention period) EDIC (observational follow-up)
Years
6. A1c Reduction With Intensive &
Conventional Management
0 2 4 6 8 10
Years from randomization
5 731 9
8
9
10
7
HbA1c(%)
6
0
Intensive
Conventional
DCCT Research Group. N.Eng.J.Med. 1993;329:977–986.
9.1%
7.2%
7. UKPDS: Post-Trial Changes in HbA1c
UKPDS results
presented
Mean (95%CI)
UKPDS 80. N Eng J Med 2008; 359
8. After median 8.5 years post-trial follow-up
Aggregate Endpoint 1997 2007
Any diabetes related endpoint RRR: 12% 9%
P: 0.029 0.040
Microvascular disease RRR: 25% 24%
P: 0.0099 0.001
Myocardial infarction RRR: 16% 15%
P: 0.052 0.014
All-cause mortality RRR: 6% 13%
P: 0.44 0.007
RRR = Relative Risk Reduction, P = Log Rank
UKPDS: Legacy Effect of Earlier Glucose
Control
N Eng J Med 2008
9. UKPDS: Post-Trial Monitoring: Patients
880
Conventional
2,118
Sulfonylurea/Insulin
279
Metformin
1997
# in survivor cohort
2002
Clinic
Clinic
Clinic
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
2007
# with final year data
379
Conventional
1,010
Sulfonylurea/Insulin
136
Metformin
P
P
Mortality 44% (1,852)
Lost-to-follow-up 3.5% (146)
Mean age
62±8 years
N Eng J Med 2008
10. Intensive vs. conventional management
Time from randomization (years)
MedianA1C(%)
Conventional Treatment (n=1138)
Intensive Treatment (n=2729)
9
8
7
6
0
0 3 6 9 12 15
{0.9%
Adapted from UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352:837-853.
UKPDSUKPDS
Median A1c
Conventional : 7.9 %
Intensive : 7%
12. ACCORD ADVANCE and VADT- No SignificantACCORD ADVANCE and VADT- No Significant
Effect on Macro or Micro Vascular OutcomesEffect on Macro or Micro Vascular Outcomes
ACCORDACCORD ADVANCEADVANCE VADTVADT
No. of participantsNo. of participants 10,25110,251 11,14011,140 17911791
Participant age ,yearsParticipant age ,years 6262 6666 6060
Duration of diabetes atDuration of diabetes at
study entry, yearsstudy entry, years
1010 88 11.511.5
HbA1C at Baseline, %HbA1C at Baseline, % 8.18.1 7.57.5 9.49.4
Participants with priorParticipants with prior
cardiovascular event, %cardiovascular event, %
3535 3232 4040
Duration of follow-up,Duration of follow-up,
yearsyears
3.43.4 5.05.0 66
13. Summary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADTSummary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADT
ACCORDACCORD ADVANCEADVANCE VADTVADT
No. of participantsNo. of participants 10,25110,251 11,14011,140 17911791
Participant age ,yearsParticipant age ,years 6262 6666 6060
HbA1C at Baseline, %HbA1C at Baseline, % 8.18.1 7.57.5 9.49.4
Significant Effect onSignificant Effect on
MacrovascularMacrovascular
Outcomes?Outcomes?
NoNo NoNo NoNo
Significant Effect onSignificant Effect on
MicrovascularMicrovascular
Outcomes?Outcomes?
NANA Significant forSignificant for
nephropathy, notnephropathy, not
retinopathyretinopathy
NoNo
Rosiglitazone use,Rosiglitazone use,
(intensive vs. standard)(intensive vs. standard)
90% vs. 58%90% vs. 58% 17% vs. 11%17% vs. 11% 85% vs.85% vs.
78%78%
Duration of follow-up,Duration of follow-up,
yearsyears
3.43.4 5.05.0 66
14. Summary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADTSummary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADT
ACCORDACCORD ADVANCEADVANCE VADTVADT
No. of participantsNo. of participants 10,25110,251 11,14011,140 17911791
Participant age ,yearsParticipant age ,years 6262 6666 6060
HbA1C at Baseline, %HbA1C at Baseline, % 8.18.1 7.57.5 9.49.4
Significant Effect onSignificant Effect on
MicrovascularMicrovascular
Outcomes?Outcomes?
NANA Significant forSignificant for
nephropathy, notnephropathy, not
retinopathyretinopathy
NoNo
Rosiglitazone use,Rosiglitazone use,
(intensive vs. standard)(intensive vs. standard)
90% vs. 58%90% vs. 58% 17% vs. 11%17% vs. 11% 85% vs.85% vs.
78%78%
Duration of follow-up,Duration of follow-up,
yearsyears
3.43.4 5.05.0 66
Significant Effect onSignificant Effect on
MacrovascularMacrovascular
OutcomesOutcomes??
No No No
15. Summary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADTSummary of ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADT
Incidence of Severe Hypoglycemia (%)Incidence of Severe Hypoglycemia (%)
ACCORDACCORD ADVANCEADVANCE VADTVADT
Intensive armIntensive arm 16.216.2 2.72.7 21.221.2
Standard armStandard arm 5.15.1 1.51.5 9.99.9
18. Severe Hypoglycemia Causes QTc Prolongation
P=NS
P=0.0003
Landstedt-Hallin L et al. J Intern Med. 1999;246:299–307.
Euglycemic clamp
(n=8)
Hypoglycemic clamp
2 weeks after
glibenclamide withdrawal
(n=13)
0
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
MeanQTinterval,ms
Baseline (t=0)
End of clamp (t=150 min)
ACCORD?
Significant QTc prolongation
during
hypoglycemia
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. Conclusions
• Although observational trials demonstrated
that the relationship between glycemic control
and CV diabetic complications was log-linear
and extended down to the normal A1c with no
threshold, yet randomized clinical trials failed
to confirm this hypothesis
• There is no solid evidence that tight glycemic
control ( A1c <6.5 %) has clear benefit on
reducing CV outcome in type 2 diabetic
individuals but there is definite evidence that
tight glycemic control increases the risk of
severe hypoglycemia
24. •Older patients with long standing
diabetes and existing co-morbidities do
not benefit from intensive glycemic
control
•Controlling nonglycemic risk factors
(hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, …)
with standard glycemic control (A1c <
7%) is still the recommended strategy to
prevent CV diabetic complications)
Conclusions-Cont.
The incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and clinical complications in type 2 diabetes is significantly associated with glycaemia.
The study population included 4,585 participants from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), whether randomized or not to treatment. Of these, 3,642 were included in an analysis of relative risk to determine the relation between exposure to glycaemia over time and the risk of macrovascular or microvascular complications.
The incidence rates for any endpoint related to diabetes increased with each higher category of updated mean HbA1c.
The increase in the incidence rate for microvascular endpoints was greater over the range of increasing glycaemia than was the increase in the incidence rate for MI. Thus, at near normal concentrations of HbA1c, the risk of MI was 2–3 times that of a microvascular endpoint, whereas in the highest category of HbA1c concentration the risks were of the same order.
Stratton IM, et al. BMJ 2000; 321:405–412.
United Kingdom Prospective Study 33 was the largest study of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients ever undertaken to examine the outcomes of treatment strategies over time
More than 4200 patients were eligible for randomisation to receive conventional or intensive treatment for 10 years1
Conventional therapy consisted of dietary advice; in patients who developed marked hyperglycaemia, secondary sulphonylurea or insulin therapy was provided, with the additional option of metformin in overweight patients
Intensive therapy consisted of dietary advice, along with sulphonylureas or insulin therapy with once-daily Ultralente insulin or isophane insulin
The landmark UKPDS demonstrated that intensive glucose control resulted in significant reductions in microvascular events but had little to no benefit in macrovascular events. Glucose control is generally regarded as the first priority in the treatment of patients with diabetes, and elevated blood glucose is considered an important factor in the increased risk for CVD in these individuals. The relationship between glucose control and cardiovascular risk was studied in the UKPDS.19 As part of the study, the effect of intensive glucose control with either sulfonylurea or insulin on the risk of microvascular and/or macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes was compared with conventional glucose control. The goal of intensive therapy was to decrease fasting plasma glucose (FPG) to &lt;6 mmol/L. Conventional treatment goal was an FPG of &lt;15 mmol/L without symptoms of hyperglycemia. Newly diagnosed asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes (n=3867) were enrolled in the study and followed for 10 years. Median HbA1c values over 10 years were significantly higher in the conventional treatment group than in the intensive treatment group (7.9% vs. 7.0%, p&lt;0.0001).
As expected, intensive control of blood glucose with sulfonylurea or insulin was significantly more effective than conventional therapy in reducing the risk of any diabetes-related endpoints (combined microvascular and macrovascular events) by 12% (p=0.029). Intensive therapy also significantly reduced the risk for microvascular events by 25% (p=0.0099) and decreased the risk of MI by 16% (p=0.052). However, intensive control of FPG was no more effective than conventional treatment in reducing mortality due to MI, stroke, or amputation or death from peripheral vascular disease.19 Furthermore, intensive control of blood glucose had no significant impact on diabetes-related death, all-cause mortality, or the incidence of stroke or peripheral vascular disease among patients enrolled in UKPDS.19
In DCCT (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial), 1,441 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomized to intensive ( 3 daily insulin injections or insulin pump) or conventional treatment (1–2 daily insulin injections) for a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years.
At the end of DCCT, participants receiving conventional treatment were offered intensive treatment. All patients returned to their own healthcare provider for diabetes care.
In total, 1,397 patients (96%) from the DCCT were followed in the observational EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) study for a mean 17 years of follow-up.
As shown in the upper graph, in DCCT the absolute difference in mean HbA1c between the intensive and conventional groups was ~2% (7.4% vs 9.1%; P &lt; 0.01) at 6.5 years, which was sustained during the intervention period. During EDIC, differences in HbA1c narrowed in these groups (8.0% vs and 8.2%, respectively; P = 0.03) at 11 years.
As shown in the lower graph, changes in HbA1c associated with intensive treatment were accompanied by a reduction in risk of non-fatal MI, stroke or death.
In EDIC, patients who had received intensive treatment in DCCT had reduced the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) by 57% in patients with type 1 diabetes (95% CI, 12–79%; P = 0.02).
Intensive treatment also reduced the risk of any CVD event by 42% (95% CI, 9–63%; P = 0.02).
There are a number of potential mechanisms by which intensive glycaemic control may reduce CVD risk, including a reduction in HbA1c.
DCCT/EDIC. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2643–2653.
In the conventional management group (1–2 insulin injections daily), HbA1c remained relatively constant during the study period with no significant change from baseline (mean HbA1c baseline value 8.9%). HbA1c in the intensive management group (at least 3 insulin injections daily) reached its lowest point in the first 6 months of treatment. Differences in HbA1c between the two management groups were statistically significant from 3 months until the end of the study (p&lt;0.001).
Although 44% people receiving intensive management achieved the goal of HbA1c 6.05% at least once, less than 5% of patients maintained an average value in this range.
Reference
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Eng J Med. 1993; 329:977–986.
United Kingdom Prospective Study 33 was the largest study of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients ever undertaken to examine the outcomes of treatment strategies over time
More than 4200 patients were eligible for randomisation to receive conventional or intensive treatment for 10 years1
Conventional therapy consisted of dietary advice; in patients who developed marked hyperglycaemia, secondary sulphonylurea or insulin therapy was provided, with the additional option of metformin in overweight patients
Intensive therapy consisted of dietary advice, along with sulphonylureas or insulin therapy with once-daily Ultralente insulin or isophane insulin
Asymptomatic Episodes of Hypoglycemia May Go Unreported
In clinical studies of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), episodes of hypoglycemia have been found to go unrecognized.1–3
Chico et al1 used CGM to measure the frequency of unrecognized episodes of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 (n=40) and type 2 (n=30) diabetes. CGM detected unrecognized hypoglycemic events in 55.7% of all patients. In the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes, CGM detected hypoglycemic events in 46.6% of patients.1
Other researchers have reported similar findings.2,3
Severe Hypoglycemia May Cause a Prolongation of QT Interval in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Severe hypoglycemia may cause prolongation of the QT interval in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Landstedt-Hallin et al1 examined the effect of insulin-induced hypoglycemia on cardiac repolarization in 13 patients with type 2 diabetes. All patients had been treated with both insulin and oral glibenclamide for at least 8 months before the start of the study.
The patients stopped using oral glibenclamide for 2 weeks but continued with insulin therapy. They were subjected to a first hypoglycemic clamp at the end of these 2 weeks. The patients then resumed combined glibenclamide and insulin therapy, and after 6 to 8 months they participated in a second hypoglycemic clamp. Eight patients were subjected to a third euglycemic clamp study after an additional 3 to 4 months.1
As demonstrated in the graph, the study showed that mean QT intervals and QT dispersion were significantly prolonged after the hypoglycemic clamps. These results showed that hypoglycemia affected repolarization of the mycardium, creating an increased risk of arrhythmias.1