BACKGROUND: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) can significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, to our knowledge, previous studies have not assessed variability in both the benefit and harm from pursuing LDL-C and BP target levels. METHODS: Our sample comprised individuals 30 to 75 years old with DM participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We used Monte Carlo methods to simulate a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients underwent treatment intensification with the goal of achieving LDL-C and BP target levels of 100 mg/dL and 130/80 mm Hg, respectively. Patients received up to 5 titrations of statin therapy and 8 titrations of antihypertensive therapy. Treatment adverse effects and polypharmacy risks and burdens were incorporated using disutilities. Health outcomes were simulated using a Markov model. RESULTS: Treating to targets resulted in gains of 1.50 (for LDL-C) and 1.35 (for BP) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of lifetime treatment-related benefit, which declined to 1.42 and 1.16 QALYs after accounting for treatment-related harms. Most of the total benefit was limited to the first few steps of medication intensification or to tight control for a limited group of very high-risk patients. However, because of treatment-related disutility, intensifying beyond the first step (LDL-C) or third step (BP) resulted in either limited benefit or net harm for patients with below-average risk. CONCLUSION: The benefits and harms from aggressive risk factor modification vary widely across the US population of individuals with DM, depending on a patient's underlying CVD risk, suggesting that a personalized approach could maximize a patient's net benefit from treatment.
BACKGROUND: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) can significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, to our knowledge, previous studies have not assessed variability in both the benefit and harm from pursuing LDL-C and BP target levels. METHODS: Our sample comprised individuals 30 to 75 years old with DM participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We used Monte Carlo methods to simulate a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients underwent treatment intensification with the goal of achieving LDL-C and BP target levels of 100 mg/dL and 130/80 mm Hg, respectively. Patients received up to 5 titrations of statin therapy and 8 titrations of antihypertensive therapy. Treatment adverse effects and polypharmacy risks and burdens were incorporated using disutilities. Health outcomes were simulated using a Markov model. RESULTS: Treating to targets resulted in gains of 1.50 (for LDL-C) and 1.35 (for BP) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of lifetime treatment-related benefit, which declined to 1.42 and 1.16 QALYs after accounting for treatment-related harms. Most of the total benefit was limited to the first few steps of medication intensification or to tight control for a limited group of very high-risk patients. However, because of treatment-related disutility, intensifying beyond the first step (LDL-C) or third step (BP) resulted in either limited benefit or net harm for patients with below-average risk. CONCLUSION: The benefits and harms from aggressive risk factor modification vary widely across the US population of individuals with DM, depending on a patient's underlying CVD risk, suggesting that a personalized approach could maximize a patient's net benefit from treatment.
Authors: Christie M Ballantyne; Marcelo Bertolami; Hugo Ricardo Hernandez Garcia; Daniel Nul; Evan A Stein; Pierre Theroux; Robert Weiss; Valerie A Cain; Joel S Raichlen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Terje R Pedersen; Ole Faergeman; John J P Kastelein; Anders G Olsson; Matti J Tikkanen; Ingar Holme; Mogens Lytken Larsen; Fredrik S Bendiksen; Christina Lindahl; Michael Szarek; John Tsai Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H B Rubins; S J Robins; D Collins; C L Fye; J W Anderson; M B Elam; F H Faas; E Linares; E J Schaefer; G Schectman; T J Wilt; J Wittes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jun Wu; Aldi T Kraja; Al Oberman; Cora E Lewis; R Curtis Ellison; Donna K Arnett; Gerardo Heiss; Jean-Marc Lalouel; Stephen T Turner; Steven C Hunt; Michael A Province; D C Rao Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: John C LaRosa; Scott M Grundy; David D Waters; Charles Shear; Philip Barter; Jean-Charles Fruchart; Antonio M Gotto; Heiner Greten; John J P Kastelein; James Shepherd; Nanette K Wenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Hansson; A Zanchetti; S G Carruthers; B Dahlöf; D Elmfeldt; S Julius; J Ménard; K H Rahn; H Wedel; S Westerling Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-06-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ashley J Beard; Timothy P Hofer; John R Downs; Michelle Lucatorto; Mandi L Klamerus; Rob Holleman; Eve A Kerr Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-12-11
Authors: Ilana B Richman; Michael Fairley; Mads Emil Jørgensen; Alejandro Schuler; Douglas K Owens; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 14.676