Editorial
Glycemic Targets and Cardiovascular Disease
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2633-2635June 12, 2008
- Article
Cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes is clearly associated with the degree of hyperglycemia, as measured clinically with the use of glycated hemoglobin.1-3 However, there remains an unanswered question in diabetes management: Does the targeting of near normal levels of glycated hemoglobin reduce the rate of cardiovascular events? Randomized clinical trials that address this question are ongoing.
In this issue of the Journal, results are presented from two recently completed multicenter clinical trials, the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620)4 and the ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00145925).5 However, the two trials provide somewhat different results regarding glycemic control and cardiovascular events for patients with type 2 diabetes.
The ACCORD trial and the ADVANCE trial share a number of common features, and both were well designed and randomized. Both were designed to evaluate the effects of intensive treatment for glycemic control on vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who were considered to be at high risk. Both evaluated an intensive blood-glucose-control strategy, rather than a specific therapeutic regimen, to achieve glycemic targets at levels well below those that are currently recommended.6,7
In the ADVANCE trial, intensive treatment was reported to produce a relative reduction of 10% in the primary composite outcome of major macrovascular and microvascular events, primarily as a consequence of a reduction in nephropathy (a microvascular complication). However, with respect to the fundamental question of the effect of glycemic control on macrovascular complications, there should be no misunderstanding that the ADVANCE trial had clearly negative results. Specifically, when major macrovascular events were considered separately, there was no observed significant reduction. This result does not diminish the importance of the trial, since negative findings are still vitally important in the assessment of the association between glycemic targets and cardiovascular disease. However, by virtue of the significant reduction in nephropathy, the ADVANCE trial extended our understanding of intensive glycemic control on microvascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.
In contrast, in the ACCORD trial, the intensive-therapy group had an increased rate of death from any cause; differences in mortality appeared within 1 to 2 years and persisted during the follow-up period. Because of the increased mortality, the intensive glycemia treatment was discontinued 17 months before the scheduled end of the study, and the patients were switched to the standard glycemia regimen. A closer look reveals that for the composite primary outcome (i.e., major fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events), there were no statistical differences between the two groups. Paradoxically, the data reveal that there were fewer occurrences of the composite primary outcome in the intensive-therapy group and that the rates began to separate after 3 years, favoring the intensive-therapy group, although the difference was not significant. However, there were inconsistencies in the direction of the components of the composite outcome. For example, the rates of death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes were significantly higher in the intensive-therapy group than in the standard-therapy group, but the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the intensive-therapy group. The rates of nonfatal stroke and either fatal or nonfatal congestive heart failure did not differ significantly between the two groups.
How can we explain the reported differences in clinical outcomes in these two trials? First, although the absolute levels of glycemia in the intensive-therapy groups in both studies were similar, the rate of reduction in glycated hemoglobin differed markedly. In the ACCORD trial, patients in the intensive-therapy group had a very rapid rate of decline in the median glycated hemoglobin level (an absolute decrease of 1.4% within 4 months). In the ADVANCE trial, the absolute decrease in the glycated hemoglobin level was 0.5% at 6 months and 0.6% at 12 months. Did the rate of decline in glycated hemoglobin contribute to the differences in reported cardiovascular outcomes between the two studies? Neither study was designed to address that question, which is left open to consider in future trials.
Second, although both trials used a very aggressive pharmacologic intervention, the strategies were different. In the ACCORD trial, the rate of use of the thiazolidinediones and insulin was much higher than that in the ADVANCE trial. In the ADVANCE trial, the intensive strategy was based on use of a specific sulfonylurea, gliclazide (modified release), in more than 90% of the patients. However, differences in drug use in the ACCORD trial did not provide an explanation for the differences in mortality.
Finally, weight gain differed during the course of each study. In the intensive-therapy group in the ACCORD trial, the mean weight gain from baseline was 3.5 kg, and a weight gain of more than 10 kg was reported in more than 27% of the patients. Surprisingly, in the intensive-therapy group in the ADVANCE trial, patients had a minimal weight gain of 0.7 kg, as compared with the standard-therapy group. The weight gain may not be a trivial point, since achieving glycemic control with such an aggressive drug strategy is clearly not equivalent to achieving such control through lifestyle changes (i.e., nutritional therapy and increased physical activity).
What are the implications of these studies for therapeutic guidelines for patients with type 2 diabetes? Both trials showed that targeting glycated hemoglobin levels that are below currently accepted standards in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes did not have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease. The current recommendations suggest the adoption of “individualized” goals for certain populations, noting that less intensive glycemic goals may be indicated in patients with severe or frequent hypoglycemia.6 On the basis of the data presented, special consideration may now need to be given to high-risk patients with multiple risk factors and heart disease. A target glycated hemoglobin level of approximately 7% may be appropriate in this high-risk population, especially when the use of aggressive pharmacologic therapy is under consideration. As clearly stated by the investigators in the ACCORD trial, the potential existed for undetected adverse effects owing to an increased number of changes in drug regimens and an increased use of multiple drug classes and at increased doses.
Are the results of these studies broadly applicable to the treatment of the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes? Unfortunately, these studies did not address strategies for lowering of glycated hemoglobin levels in low-risk patients who did not have cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors. In the ACCORD trial, patients in the intensive-therapy group who did not have a history of a cardiovascular event or whose baseline glycated hemoglobin level was below 8% had significantly fewer fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events than did patients at higher risk. These findings suggest that intensive therapy was beneficial at least in this subgroup. Whether achieving glycemic targets below 7% will be beneficial to the vast majority of patients with type 2 diabetes and a low risk of cardiovascular disease remains another unanswered question.
Thus, both studies are important contributions to the field but do not provide a definitive answer to the problem of glycemic control and cardiovascular disease. Other ongoing clinical trials will provide additional clarification.8-11 It will be important to have all trials completed so that the entire body of work can be reviewed. At that time, we will have substantially more medical and scientific data on which to base such treatment decisions.
Dr. Cefalu reports serving on advisory boards and receiving lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Amylin, Pfizer, and Merck and receiving grant support from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Merck. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
This article (10.1056/NEJMe0803831) was published at www.nejm.org on June 6, 2008.
Source Information
From the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge.
- References
References
1
Selvin E ,Marinopoulos S ,Berkenblit G , et al. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:421-431
Web of Science | Medline2
Gerstein HC ,Pogue J ,Mann JF , et al. The relationship between dysglycaemia and cardiovascular and renal risk in diabetic and non-diabetic participants in the HOPE study: a prospective epidemiological analysis. Diabetologia 2005;48:1749-1755
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Stratton IM ,Adler AI ,Neil HA , et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405-412
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline5
The ADVANCE Collaborative Group
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline6
Standards of medical care in diabetes -- 2008. Diabetes Care 2008;31:Suppl 1:S12-S54
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Ryden L ,Standl E ,Bartnik M , et al. Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J 2007;28:88-136
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Abraira C ,Duckworth W ,McCarren M , et al. Design of the cooperative study on glycemic control and complications in diabetes mellitus type 2: Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. J Diabetes Complications 2003;17:314-322
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Milicevic Z ,Raz I ,Strojek K , et al. Hyperglycemia and its effect after acute myocardial infarction on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (HEART2D) study design. J Diabetes Complications 2005;19:80-87
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Gerstein H ,Yusuf S ,Riddle MC ,Ryden L ,Bosch J . Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics for a large international trial of cardiovascular disease prevention in people with dysglycemia: the ORIGIN Trial (Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine Intervention). Am Heart J 2008;155:26-32
Web of Science | Medline11
Magee MF ,Isley WL . Rationale, design, and methods for glycemic control in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Trial. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:20G-30G
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (18)
Citing Articles
1
Joseph M. Tibaldi. (2011) Intensifying Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Dosing Options for Insulin Analogue Premixes. Clinical Therapeutics 33:11, 1630-1642
CrossRef2
Urmimala Sarkar, Andrea López, Karen Black, Dean Schillinger. (2011) The Wrong Tool for the Job: Diabetes Public Health Programs and Practice Guidelines. American Journal of Public Health 101:10, 1871-1873
CrossRef3
W.C. Lee, C. Conner, M. Hammer. (2011) Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus rosiglitazone, both in combination with glimepiride in treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US. Current Medical Research and Opinion 27:5, 897-906
CrossRef4
Paul J. Beisswenger. (2010) Glycation and biomarkers of vascular complications of diabetes. Amino Acids
CrossRef5
Dídac Mauricio, Ferran Rius. (2010) Controversias actuales en los objetivos de control glucémico. ¿Qué reflexiones exigen los resultados de los últimos estudios para abordar la diabetes mellitus tipo 2?. Medicina Clínica 135, 2-5
CrossRef6
Peter M. Nilsson, Adie Viljoen, Anthony S. Wierzbicki. 2010. Cardiovascular Risk Factors. , 657-683.
CrossRef7
Sherman J. Bigornia, Melanie M. Mott, Donald T. Hess, Caroline M. Apovian, Marie E. McDonnell, Mai-Ann Duess, Matthew A. Kluge, Antonino J. Fiscale, Joseph A. Vita, Noyan Gokce. (2010) Long-term Successful Weight Loss Improves Vascular Endothelial Function in Severely Obese Individuals. Obesity 18:4, 754-759
CrossRef8
Heinz Drexel, Stefan Aczel, Thomas Marte, Alexander Vonbank, Christoph H. Saely. (2010) Factors predicting cardiovascular events in statin-treated diabetic and non-diabetic patients with coronary atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 208:2, 484-489
CrossRef9
Mary Ann Vann. (2009) Perioperative management of ambulatory surgical patients with diabetes mellitus. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 22:6, 718-724
CrossRef10
R. Gadsby. (2009) Treatment of type 2 diabetes. InnovAiT 2:12, 702-707
CrossRef11
Michael R. Jones, Sunder Mudaliar, Eric Hernandez-Triana, Ambika G. Unnikrishnan, Yu-Ling Lai, Stacey L. Abby, Soamnauth Misir, Xiaoping Jin, Sukumar Nagendran. (2009) Rationale and design of a clinical trial to evaluate metformin and colesevelam HCl as first-line therapy in type 2 diabetes and colesevelam HCl in prediabetes. Current Medical Research and Opinion 25:9, 2239-2249
CrossRef12
R. J. MacIsaac, G. Jerums, A. J. Weekes, M. C. Thomas. (2009) Patterns of glycaemic control in Australian primary care (NEFRON 8). Internal Medicine Journal 39:8, 512-518
CrossRef13
Kornél Simon. (2009) Civilizációs stressz, cardiovascularis kockázat, evidence based medicine, guideline-ok. Orvosi Hetilap 150:19, 895-902
CrossRef14
J. N. Basile. (2009) Antihypertensive therapy, new-onset diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. International Journal of Clinical Practice 63:4, 656-666
CrossRef15
L. Lundby Christensen, T. Almdal, T. Boesgaard, L. Breum, E. Dunn, B. Gade-Rasmussen, C. Gluud, C. Hedetoft, A. Jarloev, T. Jensen, T. Krarup, L. B. Johansen, S. S. Lund, S. Madsbad, E. Mathiesen, J. Moelvig, F. Nielsen, H. Perrild, O. Pedersen, M. Roeder, S. B. Sneppen, O. Snorgaard, L. Tarnow, B. Thorsteinsson, A. Vaag, H. Vestergaard, J. Wetterslev, N. Wiinberg, . (2009) Study rationale and design of the CIMT trial: The Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy Trial. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 11:4, 315-322
CrossRef16
Francesco Zaccardi, Dario Pitocco, Giovanni Ghirlanda. (2009) Glycemic risk factors of diabetic vascular complications: the role of glycemic variability. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 25:3, 199-207
CrossRef17
Jane Jeffrie Seley. (2008) Does Tight Glycemic Control Increase the Risk of Death?. AJN, American Journal of Nursing 108:11, 31
CrossRef18
Woo Je Lee, Kyung Soo Ko, Byoung Doo Rhee. (2008) Intensive Glucose Control and Cardiovascular Outcomes: Focused on Recent Clinical Trials. Journal of Korean Endocrine Society 23:5, 289
CrossRef
