BACKGROUND: Aggressive glycemic control has been hypothesized to prevent renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the benefits of intensive vs conventional glucose control on kidney-related outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Three databases were systematically searched (January 1, 1950, to December 31, 2010) with no language restrictions to identify randomized trials that compared surrogate renal end points (microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria) and clinical renal end points (doubling of the serum creatinine level, end-stage renal disease [ESRD], and death from renal disease) in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving intensive glucose control vs those receiving conventional glucose control. RESULTS: We evaluated 7 trials involving 28 065 adults who were monitored for 2 to 15 years. Compared with conventional control, intensive glucose control reduced the risk for microalbuminuria (risk ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) and macroalbuminuria (0.74 [0.65-0.85]), but not doubling of the serum creatinine level (1.06 [0.92-1.22]), ESRD (0.69 [0.46-1.05]), or death from renal disease (0.99 [0.55-1.79]). Meta-regression revealed that larger differences in hemoglobin A1c between intensive and conventional therapy at the study level were associated with greater benefit for both microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. The pooled cumulative incidence of doubling of the serum creatinine level, ESRD, and death from renal disease was low (<4%, <1.5%, and <0.5%, respectively) compared with the surrogate renal end points of microalbuminuria (23%) and macroalbuminuria (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive glucose control reduces the risk for microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, but evidence is lacking that intensive glycemic control reduces the risk for significant clinical renal outcomes, such as doubling of the serum creatinine level, ESRD, or death from renal disease during the years of follow-up of the trials.
BACKGROUND: Aggressive glycemic control has been hypothesized to prevent renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the benefits of intensive vs conventional glucose control on kidney-related outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Three databases were systematically searched (January 1, 1950, to December 31, 2010) with no language restrictions to identify randomized trials that compared surrogate renal end points (microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria) and clinical renal end points (doubling of the serum creatinine level, end-stage renal disease [ESRD], and death from renal disease) in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving intensive glucose control vs those receiving conventional glucose control. RESULTS: We evaluated 7 trials involving 28 065 adults who were monitored for 2 to 15 years. Compared with conventional control, intensive glucose control reduced the risk for microalbuminuria (risk ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) and macroalbuminuria (0.74 [0.65-0.85]), but not doubling of the serum creatinine level (1.06 [0.92-1.22]), ESRD (0.69 [0.46-1.05]), or death from renal disease (0.99 [0.55-1.79]). Meta-regression revealed that larger differences in hemoglobin A1c between intensive and conventional therapy at the study level were associated with greater benefit for both microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. The pooled cumulative incidence of doubling of the serum creatinine level, ESRD, and death from renal disease was low (<4%, <1.5%, and <0.5%, respectively) compared with the surrogate renal end points of microalbuminuria (23%) and macroalbuminuria (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive glucose control reduces the risk for microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, but evidence is lacking that intensive glycemic control reduces the risk for significant clinical renal outcomes, such as doubling of the serum creatinine level, ESRD, or death from renal disease during the years of follow-up of the trials.
Authors: Anushka Patel; Stephen MacMahon; John Chalmers; Bruce Neal; Laurent Billot; Mark Woodward; Michel Marre; Mark Cooper; Paul Glasziou; Diederick Grobbee; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Simon Heller; Lisheng Liu; Giuseppe Mancia; Carl Erik Mogensen; Changyu Pan; Neil Poulter; Anthony Rodgers; Bryan Williams; Severine Bompoint; Bastiaan E de Galan; Rohina Joshi; Florence Travert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tanika N Kelly; Lydia A Bazzano; Vivian A Fonseca; Tina K Thethi; Kristi Reynolds; Jiang He Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S Kawazu; S Tomono; M Shimizu; N Kato; T Ohno; C Ishii; K Murata; T Watanabe; K Negishi; M Suzuki Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 1994 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: William Duckworth; Carlos Abraira; Thomas Moritz; Domenic Reda; Nicholas Emanuele; Peter D Reaven; Franklin J Zieve; Jennifer Marks; Stephen N Davis; Rodney Hayward; Stuart R Warren; Steven Goldman; Madeline McCarren; Mary Ellen Vitek; William G Henderson; Grant D Huang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hertzel C Gerstein; Michael E Miller; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; J Thomas Bigger; John B Buse; William C Cushman; Saul Genuth; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Denise G Simons-Morton; William T Friedewald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Y Ohkubo; H Kishikawa; E Araki; T Miyata; S Isami; S Motoyoshi; Y Kojima; N Furuyoshi; M Shichiri Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Revathi Balakrishnan; Jeffrey S Berger; Lisa Tully; Anish Vani; Binita Shah; Joseph Burdowski; Edward Fisher; Arthur Schwartzbard; Steven Sedlis; Howard Weintraub; James A Underberg; Ann Danoff; James A Slater; Eugenia Gianos Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Sankar D Navaneethan; Jesse D Schold; Stacey E Jolly; Susana Arrigain; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Joseph V Nally Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Elbert S Huang; Neda Laiteerapong; Jennifer Y Liu; Priya M John; Howard H Moffet; Andrew J Karter Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873