| Literature DB >> 20807873 |
Aramesh Saremi1, Thomas E Moritz, Robert J Anderson, Carlos Abraira, William C Duckworth, Peter D Reaven.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictors of progression of calcified atherosclerosis and the effect of intensive glycemic control on this process in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: As part of the Risk Factors, Atherosclerosis, and Clinical Events in Diabetes (RACED) substudy of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT), 197 and 189 individuals with type 2 diabetes received baseline and follow-up computed tomographic scans for measurement of coronary and abdominal artery calcium, respectively. Standard and novel risk factors were assessed at baseline, and progression of calcified atherosclerosis was determined by several methods. Progression was defined both as a categorical (square root increase of volumetric scores ≥ 2.5 mm(3)) and continuous variable. In addition, annualized percent change of volume scores was determined.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20807873 PMCID: PMC2992205 DOI: 10.2337/dc10-1388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Care ISSN: 0149-5992 Impact factor: 19.112
Baseline characteristics
| With scans | Without scans | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Intensive | ||
| 104 | 93 | 104 | |
| Standard risk factors | |||
| Age (years) | 61 ± 9 | 61 ± 9 | 61 ± 9 |
| NHW (%) vs. others | 73 | 61 | 62 |
| Smoker (%) | 14 | 12 | 18 |
| Hypertension (%) | 77 | 84 | 80 |
| Prior CVD (%) | 37 | 37 | 39 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 31.2 ± 4.3 | 31.4 ± 4.2 | 31.4 ± 4.5 |
| Duration (years) | 12 ± 8 | 13 ± 8 | 12 ± 8 |
| A1C (%) | 9.2 ± 1.3 | 9.2 ± 1.4 | 9.5 ± 1.5 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dl) | 178 ± 38 | 183 ± 42 | 179 ± 33 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dl) | 100 ± 31 | 108 ± 32 | 106 ± 29 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dl) | 36 ± 11 | 38 ± 11 | 36 ± 10 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dl) | 167 (126–266) | 156 (117–208) | 163 (113–233) |
| Total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio | 5 ± 2 | 5 ± 1 | 5 ± 2 |
| Novel risk factors | |||
| ACR (mg/g) | 21 (7- 83) | 14 (4–36) | 18 (6–55) |
| C-reactive protein (mg/l) | 3.1 (1.7–5.1) | 2.5 (1.4–5.8) | 3.3 (1.6–7.8) |
| IL-6 (pg/ml) | 3.2 (2.1–5.1) | 2.7 (1.8–5.7) | 3.3 (2.3–4.8) |
| Adiponectin (mg/l) | 5.1 (3.1–7.9) | 4.7(2.9–7.5) | 5.7 (3.5–9.4) |
| Lp-PLA2 (ng/ml) | 294 (241–351) | 284 (35–338) | 289 (241–362) |
| Baseline CAC score | 239 (17–808) | 267 (27–981) | 301 (23–849) |
| Baseline AAC score | 917 (125–3,508) | 848 (189–4,401) | 1,674 (193–4,442) |
Data are means ± SD, medians (25%–75%), or %.
*P < 0.05;
†P < 0.01 vs. standard group.
Multivariable linear regression models for predictors of CAC progression
| Regression coefficients | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Log(ACR) | 0.72 ± 0.32 | 0.62 ± 0.29 | 0.61 ± 0.29 | 1.02 ± 0.42 | 0.86 ± 0.42 |
| Log(Lp-PLA2) | 4.57 ± 1.88 | 3.77 ± 1.69 | 3.77 ± 1.70 | 4.55 ± 1.73 | 4.51 ± 1.73 |
Data are means ± SEM. All models include log(ACR) and log(Lp-PLA2) at the same time. Model 1: adjusted for age, diabetes duration, BMI, ethnicity (NHW vs. others), pack-years smoking (number of packs of cigarettes per day × number of years smoked), hypertension, prior CVD, A1C, and total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio. Model 2: adjusted for model 1 + baseline CAC. Model 3: adjusted for model 2 + treatment assignment. Model 4: adjusted for model 3 + mean of on-trial variables (A1C, BMI, ACR, and total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio). Model 5: adjusted for model 4 + on-trial medication (statins, antihypertensive agents, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers).
*P < 00.05;
†P ≤ 0.01.
Figure 1Progression of CAC or AAC by treatment assignment. A: Median and 25th–75th percentiles of CAC progression by treatment group in all participants and by baseline CAC categories. The P value for the comparison between the treatment groups was not significant in all participants or in any baseline CAC categories. B: Median and 25th–75th percentiles of AAC progression by treatment group in all participants and by baseline AAC categories. The P value for the comparison between the treatment groups was not significant in all participants or in any baseline AAC categories. □, standard group; ■, intensive treatment group.