Search

In spite of being at target for glucose (1) or traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (2), individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) still have an excess of CV mortality and morbidity implying a role for other mechanisms including insulin resistance (IR). Impaired insulin action in T1D was established by clamp technique long ago (3). Estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) correlates well with the clamp technique (4) and is a risk marker for microangiopathy (5,6), diabetic kidney disease (DKD) (6), CV risk, and mortality (5,7). In this observational single-center study, we investigated to what extent eGDR is a predictor of CV events, coronary artery disease (CAD), and all-cause mortality irrespective of CV risk factors and DKD in 774 subjects with T1D over a 10-year follow-up, as previously described (8). eGDR (mg/kg/min) was calculated at baseline as follows (4): eGDR = 21.158 − (0.09 × WC) − (3.407 × HTN) − (0.551 × HbA1c), where WC is waist circumference (cm), HTN is hypertension (yes = 1, no = 0), and HbA1c is in %. Follow-up data were retrieved from the national and regional health care registers (ICD-9, Clinical Modification, codes) by searching for CV outcomes (primary outcome) up to 31 December 2017 and for all-cause death up to 31 October 2018. Incidence of CV outcomes was available for 736 participants (95.1%), and vital status was available for all individuals (8). We used univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to …

Gonzalez-Clemente et al. (1) claim that a simpler though efficient assessment of cardiovascular risk in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is much needed. Since we showed that the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) was an independent predictor of cardiovascular (CVD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) in people with T1D, they evaluated whether cutoff eGDR values could be calculated to be used in clinical practice to stratify CVD risk. They used the Steno Type 1 Risk Engine (ST1RE) (2) in 179 T1D subjects without CVD to identify 10-year risk level for a first CVD event: low (

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive, multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction intervention in a clinic-based setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, with the diabetes clinic as the unit of randomization. Clinics were randomly assigned to either continue their usual care (n = 5) or to apply an intensive intervention aimed at the optimal control of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and hyperglycemia (n = 4). To account for clustering, mixed model regression techniques were used to compare differences in CVD risk factors and HbA1c. Analyses were performed both by intent to treat and as treated per protocol. RESULTS Nine clinics completed the study; 1,461 patients with type 2 diabetes and no previous cardiovascular events were enrolled. After 2 years, participants in the interventional group had significantly lower BMI, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels and significantly higher HDL cholesterol level than did the usual care group. The proportion of patients reaching the treatment goals was systematically higher in the interventional clinics (35% vs. 24% for LDL cholesterol, P = 0.1299; 93% vs. 82% for HDL cholesterol, P = 0.0005; 80% vs. 64% for triglycerides, P = 0.0002; 39% vs. 22% for HbA1c, P = 0.0259; 13% vs. 5% for blood pressure, P = 0.1638). The analysis as treated per protocol confirmed these findings, showing larger and always significant differences between the study arms for all targets. CONCLUSIONS A multifactorial intensive intervention in type 2 diabetes is feasible and effective in clinical practice and it is associated with significant and durable improvement in HbA1c and CVD risk profile.

OBJECTIVE To ascertain to which extent the use of HbA1c and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for diagnosis of glucose tolerance could identify individuals with different pathogenetic mechanisms and cardiovascular risk profile. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 844 subjects (44% men; age 49.5 ± 11 years; BMI 29 ± 5 kg/m2) participated in this study. Parameters of β-cell function were derived from deconvolution of the plasma C-peptide concentration after a 75-g OGTT and insulin sensitivity assessed by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (IR). Cardiovascular risk profile was based on determination of plasma lipids and measurements of body weight, waist circumference, and blood pressure. Glucose regulation categories by OGTT and HbA1c were compared with respect to insulin action, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile. RESULTS OGTT results showed 42% of the subjects had prediabetes and 15% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whereas the corresponding figures based on HbA1c were 38 and 11%, with a respective concordance rate of 54 and 44%. Subjects meeting both diagnostic criteria for prediabetes presented greater IR and impairment of insulin secretion and had a worse cardiovascular risk profile than those with normal glucose tolerance at both diagnostic methods. In a logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, and BMI, prediabetic subjects, and even more T2DM subjects by OGTT, had greater chance to have IR and impaired insulin secretion. CONCLUSIONS HbA1c identifies a smaller proportion of prediabetic individuals and even a smaller proportion of T2DM individuals than OGTT, with no difference in IR, insulin secretion, and cardiovascular risk profile. Subjects fulfilling both diagnostic methods for prediabetes or T2DM are characterized by a worse metabolic profile.

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic and progressive condition associated with the risk of invalidating micro- and macrovascular complications. Hyperglycemia is the hallmark of the condition and, despite much discussion, glycemic control remains a main goal of treatment in the attempt to prevent chronic complications. A beneficial effect of glycemic control was initially supported by the UK Diabetes Prospective Study showing that intensive treatment, compared with conventional therapy, resulted in an average HbA1c level of 7% and was associated with a 24% relative risk reduction of any diabetes-related end point and a 37% reduction in the risk of microvascular disease. Moreover, a nonsignificant 16% reduction ( P = 0.052) in the risk of acute myocardial infarction was reported (1). Similar results were confirmed in the Kumamoto study (2), whereas the results of more recent intervention trials remain questionable. In the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study (3), a lower mean HbA1c level was achieved in the intensive-control group than in the standard-control group (6.6 vs. 7.3%). Intensive control reduced the incidence of combined major macro- and microvascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90; 95% CI 0.82–0.98; P = 0.01), as well as that of major microvascular events (HR 0.86; 0.77–0.97; P = 0.01). However, there was no significant effect of glucose control on major macrovascular events, death from cardiovascular causes, or death from any cause. In the Veteran Administration Diabetes Trial (VADT) (4), median HbA1c levels were 8.4% in the standard therapy group and 6.9% in the intensive therapy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of cardiovascular events or in the rate of death from any cause (HR 1.07; 0.81–1.42; P = 0.62). No differences between the two groups were observed for microvascular …

Athough type 2 diabetes is a heterogeneous condition encompassing multiple metabolic and vascular alterations, it can be easily described as a disease characterized by chronic hyperglycemia and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Hyperglycemia is the diagnostic criterion for diabetes, the target for antidiabetic therapy, and, together with A1C, the marker of glycemic control. Progressive worsening of glycemic control has been described in type 2 diabetic patients irrespective of initial form of treatment, leading the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) investigators to describe such changes as the “natural history” of the disease (1). Still, maintaining good glycemic control is crucial, since it is associated with marked reduction in the risk of developing retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in both type 1 (2) and type 2 diabetic patients (1). But it is CV disease that worsens long-term prognosis in type 2 diabetes (3), to the point that diabetes has been proposed as a CV risk equivalent owed to the observation that 10-year risk for major coronary events approximates the risk in CHD in patients without diabetes with previous CV events (4), increased case fatality rate after myocardial infarction, and worse overall prognosis after CHD (5). In diabetic patients, even after correction for known CV risk factors, the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke is two- to threefold higher than in the nondiabetic population, with a twofold increase in risk of death (6), suggesting that some feature of diabetes must confer excessive propensity toward CV disease. Can this feature be hyperglycemia? No better issue can be chosen for debate. From an epidemiological point of view, there is evidence that the risk of CV mortality increases with the increase of plasma glucose concentrations (7) and A1C values (8). Moreover, multiple atherogenic mechanisms have been identified that can be activated by hyperglycemia (9). In spite of evident …

Cardiovascular disease accounts for a great majority of deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes. According to the World Health Organization, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients ranges from 26 to 36%. Fatality rate after myocardial infarction is greater in diabetic patients, and overall prognosis after coronary heart disease is worse. Based on these observations, it has been proposed that diabetes should be considered as a coronary heart disease risk equivalent. If that is the case, prevention of diabetes and early intervention should be pursued. This view is supported by the notion that cardiovascular risk is already increased in people with impaired glucose tolerance. Moreover, higher-than-optimum blood glucose is a major cause of cardiovascular mortality in most world regions of the world. Whether dysglycemia is a marker for a more complex metabolic condition or may directly contribute to excess cardiovascular risk is still a matter of debate. However, experimental work has shown how increased glucose level can trigger multiple mechanisms of susceptibility to atherosclerosis, and diabetes prevention trials have indicated that along with reduction of the rate of conversion toward diabetes, significant improvement in cardiovascular risk factors occurs. Moreover, in the STOP-NIDDM trial, targeting postprandial glucose was associated with reduction in new cases of hypertension, myocardial infarction, and any cardiovascular events. In conclusion, dysglycemia should be included in the list of established cardiovascular risk factors and early treatment introduced in the attempt to improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.