Adam de Havenon1, Jennifer J Majersik2, David L Tirschwell2, J Scott McNally2, Gregory Stoddard2, Natalia S Rost2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (A.d.H., J.J.M., J.S.M., G.S.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Department of Neurology (N.S.R.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. adam.dehavenon@hsc.utah.edu. 2. From the Department of Neurology (A.d.H., J.J.M., J.S.M., G.S.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Department of Neurology (N.S.R.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher blood pressure mean (BPM) or hemoglobin A1c is associated with progression of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) on MRI in patients with type 2 diabetes, and whether intensive blood pressure or glycemic control can reduce that progression. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Memory in Diabetes (ACCORD MIND) research materials. The primary outcome is change in WMH volume (ΔWMH) between a baseline and month-40 MRI, and the primary predictor is BPM and A1c between the MRIs. Additional analyses compared ΔWMH in the intensive vs standard glycemic control randomization arms (n = 502) and intensive vs standard blood pressure control randomization arms (n = 314). RESULTS: Higher systolic BPM, but not diastolic BPM or A1c, was associated with WMH progression. The ΔWMH in tertiles of increasing systolic BPM (115 ± 4, 127 ± 3, and 139 ± 6 mm Hg) was 0.7, 0.9, and 1.2 cm3 (p < 0.001). ΔWMH was lower in the intensive vs standard blood pressure control randomization arm (ΔWMH = 0.67 ± 0.95 vs 1.16 ± 1.13 cm3, p < 0.001), but there was no difference in the glycemic control arms (p = 0.917). CONCLUSION: In ACCORD MIND, higher systolic blood pressure was associated with WMH progression. The intensive blood pressure control intervention reduced this progression. Comorbid diabetes and hypertension has synergistic deleterious properties that increase the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications. These results provide further support for an aggressive approach to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetics.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher blood pressure mean (BPM) or hemoglobin A1c is associated with progression of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) on MRI in patients with type 2 diabetes, and whether intensive blood pressure or glycemic control can reduce that progression. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Memory in Diabetes (ACCORD MIND) research materials. The primary outcome is change in WMH volume (ΔWMH) between a baseline and month-40 MRI, and the primary predictor is BPM and A1c between the MRIs. Additional analyses compared ΔWMH in the intensive vs standard glycemic control randomization arms (n = 502) and intensive vs standard blood pressure control randomization arms (n = 314). RESULTS: Higher systolic BPM, but not diastolic BPM or A1c, was associated with WMH progression. The ΔWMH in tertiles of increasing systolic BPM (115 ± 4, 127 ± 3, and 139 ± 6 mm Hg) was 0.7, 0.9, and 1.2 cm3 (p < 0.001). ΔWMH was lower in the intensive vs standard blood pressure control randomization arm (ΔWMH = 0.67 ± 0.95 vs 1.16 ± 1.13 cm3, p < 0.001), but there was no difference in the glycemic control arms (p = 0.917). CONCLUSION: In ACCORD MIND, higher systolic blood pressure was associated with WMH progression. The intensive blood pressure control intervention reduced this progression. Comorbid diabetes and hypertension has synergistic deleterious properties that increase the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications. These results provide further support for an aggressive approach to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetics.
Authors: Lenore J Launer; Michael E Miller; Jeff D Williamson; Ron M Lazar; Hertzel C Gerstein; Anne M Murray; Mark Sullivan; Karen R Horowitz; Jingzhong Ding; Santica Marcovina; Laura C Lovato; James Lovato; Karen L Margolis; Patrick O'Connor; Edward W Lipkin; Joy Hirsch; Laura Coker; Joseph Maldjian; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Charles Truwit; Christos Davatzikos; R Nick Bryan Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Melinda C Power; Jennifer A Deal; A Richey Sharrett; Clifford R Jack; David Knopman; Thomas H Mosley; Rebecca F Gottesman Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Anne M Murray; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jeff D Williamson; R Nick Bryan; Hertzel C Gerstein; Mark D Sullivan; Michael E Miller; Iris Leng; Laura L Lovato; Lenore J Launer Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Peter M Rothwell; Sally C Howard; Eamon Dolan; Eoin O'Brien; Joanna E Dobson; Bjorn Dahlöf; Peter S Sever; Neil R Poulter Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adam de Havenon; Chelsea Meyer; J Scott McNally; Matthew Alexander; Lee Chung Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Madeline Uretsky; Sylvain Bouix; Ronald J Killiany; Yorghos Tripodis; Brett Martin; Joseph Palmisano; Asim Z Mian; Karen Buch; Chad Farris; Daniel H Daneshvar; Brigid Dwyer; Lee Goldstein; Douglas Katz; Christopher Nowinski; Robert Cantu; Neil Kowall; Bertrand Russell Huber; Robert A Stern; Victor E Alvarez; Thor D Stein; Ann McKee; Jesse Mez; Michael L Alosco Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Timo Kauppila; Merja K Laine; Mikko Honkasalo; Marko Raina; Johan G Eriksson Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 1.228