Looking for another blog? Visit Elderly Care Section! <$Diabetes mellitus$> Diabetes Mellitus...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Glycemic control and vascular complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Morbidity from diabetes is a consequence of both macrovascular disease (atherosclerosis) and microvascular disease (retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy). Prospective, randomized clinical trials such as the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), and the Kumamoto study have demonstrated that intensive therapy aimed at lower levels of glycemia results in decreased rates of retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy in type 1 and 2 diabetes patients [1-3] .

The importance of tight glycemic control for protection against cardiovascular disease in diabetes has also been established in the DCCT/EDIC study for type 1 diabetes [1] . However, the role of glycemic control in reducing cardiovascular risk has not been established for type 2 diabetes. The effects of glycemic control on microvascular and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes will be reviewed here. Glycemic control and vascular complications in type 1 diabetes is discussed separately. (See "Glycemic control and vascular complications in type 1 diabetes mellitus", which also reviews the mechanism by which hyperglycemia might cause these complications). The treatment of diabetes is also discussed elsewhere. (See "Overview of medical care in adults with diabetes mellitus").

HYPERGLYCEMIA AND MICROVASCULAR DISEASE
— Hyperglycemia is an important risk factor for the development of microvascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, as it is in patients with type 1 diabetes. This has been shown in several observational studies [4-6] . In addition, improving glycemic control improves microvascular outcomes, as illustrated by the following randomized trials:

United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study
— The UKPDS was designed to compare the efficacy of different treatment regimens (diet, sulfonylurea drug, metformin, and insulin) on glycemic control and the complications of diabetes in about 4000 newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes [2,7] . The target fasting blood glucose concentration was 108 mg/dL (6 mmol/L) or less. Patients in the intensive-therapy group received a sulfonylurea (chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or glipizide) or insulin; metformin was added to the sulfonylurea if optimal control was not achieved with the latter alone, and insulin was initiated if the combination of oral agents remained ineffective. The conventional-therapy group was treated with diet alone; drugs were added if there were hyperglycemic symptoms or if the fasting blood glucose concentration was greater than 270 mg/dL (15 mmol/L). The following findings were noted:





  • Over 10 years, the average A1C value was 7.0 percent in the intensive-therapy group compared with 7.9 percent in the conventional-therapy group (11 percent reduction) (show figure 1).
  • The risk for any diabetes-related end point (see abstract for definition of endpoints [2] ) was 12 percent lower in the intensive-therapy group (P = 0.029) and 10 percent lower for any diabetes-related death (P = 0.34) (show figure 2). It was estimated that 19.6 patients would have to be treated to prevent any single end point in one patient in 10 years.
  • Most of the risk reduction in the intensive therapy group was due to a 25 percent risk reduction in microvascular disease (P = 0.001) (show figure 3); there was no reduction in macrovascular disease. (See "Macrovascular disease" below, section on UKPDS).
  • The benefits of intensive therapy appeared to be independent of the type of treatment administered.
  • Patients in the intensive therapy group had more hypoglycemic episodes and weight gain; weight gain was greater in those receiving insulin (4.0 kg) than in those receiving chlorpropamide (2.6 kg) or glibenclamide (1.7 kg).

The reduction in microvascular complications in patients receiving intensive therapy was of a smaller magnitude than in patients with type 1 diabetes in the DCCT [1] . In the DCCT, for example, the incidence of new retinopathy was 12 percent with intensive therapy versus 54 percent with conventional therapy. One possible explanation for this difference is that the difference in A1C values was smaller between the intensive and conventional therapy groups in the UKPDS (7.0 versus 7.9 percent) compared to the DCCT (7.2 versus 9.1 percent).

posted by ummu Fauzan @ 9:00 AM   10 comments
about me
My Photo
Name:
Location: kuwait city, Kuwait
Udah Lewat
Archives

Kemenangan terhadap diri sendiri adalah lebih baik daripada kemenangan terhadap orang lain...

Links
friends blog
Duwania ku!..
Name :
Web URL :
Message :
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
15n41n1
© 2004 namakamu.blogspot.com