Yaling Tang1,2, Hetal Shah1,2, Carlos Roberto Bueno Junior1, Xiuqin Sun1,3, Joanna Mitri1,2, Maria Sambataro4, Luisa Sambado4, Hertzel C Gerstein5, Vivian Fonseca6, Alessandro Doria7,2, Rodica Pop-Busui8. 1. Research Division, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Anzhen Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 4. Endocrine, Metabolism and Nutrition Disease Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Santa Maria of Ca' Foncello Hospital, Treviso, Italy. 5. McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Section of Endocrinology, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA. 7. Research Division, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA rpbusui@med.umich.edu alessandro.doria@joslin.harvard.edu. 8. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology & Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI rpbusui@med.umich.edu alessandro.doria@joslin.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effects of preventive interventions on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) remain unclear. We examined the effect of intensively treating traditional risk factors for CAN, including hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk participating in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CAN was defined as heart rate variability indices below the fifth percentile of the normal distribution. Of 10,251 ACCORD participants, 71% (n = 7,275) had a CAN evaluation at study entry and at least once after randomization. The effects of intensive interventions on CAN were analyzed among these subjects through generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: As compared with standard intervention, intensive glucose treatment reduced CAN risk by 16% (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94, P = 0.003)-an effect driven by individuals without cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P < 0.0001) rather than those with CVD (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91-1.34, P = 0.34) (P interaction = 0.001). Intensive blood pressure (BP) intervention decreased CAN risk by 25% (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), especially in patients ≥65 years old (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.88, P = 0.005) (P interaction = 0.05). Fenofibrate did not have a significant effect on CAN (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm a beneficial effect of intensive glycemic therapy and demonstrate, for the first time, a similar benefit of intensive BP control on CAN in T2D. A negative CVD history identifies T2D patients who especially benefit from intensive glycemic control for CAN prevention.
OBJECTIVE: The effects of preventive interventions on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) remain unclear. We examined the effect of intensively treating traditional risk factors for CAN, including hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk participating in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CAN was defined as heart rate variability indices below the fifth percentile of the normal distribution. Of 10,251 ACCORD participants, 71% (n = 7,275) had a CAN evaluation at study entry and at least once after randomization. The effects of intensive interventions on CAN were analyzed among these subjects through generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: As compared with standard intervention, intensive glucose treatment reduced CAN risk by 16% (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94, P = 0.003)-an effect driven by individuals without cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P < 0.0001) rather than those with CVD (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91-1.34, P = 0.34) (P interaction = 0.001). Intensive blood pressure (BP) intervention decreased CAN risk by 25% (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), especially in patients ≥65 years old (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.88, P = 0.005) (P interaction = 0.05). Fenofibrate did not have a significant effect on CAN (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm a beneficial effect of intensive glycemic therapy and demonstrate, for the first time, a similar benefit of intensive BP control on CAN in T2D. A negative CVD history identifies T2D patients who especially benefit from intensive glycemic control for CAN prevention.
Authors: Simon J Griffin; Guy E H M Rutten; Kamlesh Khunti; Daniel R Witte; Torsten Lauritzen; Stephen J Sharp; Else-Marie Dalsgaard; Melanie J Davies; Greg J Irving; Rimke C Vos; David R Webb; Nicholas J Wareham; Annelli Sandbæk Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Rodica Pop-Busui; William H Herman; Eva L Feldman; Phillip A Low; Catherine L Martin; Patricia A Cleary; Barbara H Waberski; John M Lachin; James W Albers Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.810
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: John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Robert P Byington; Lawton S Cooper; William C Cushman; William T Friedewald; Saul Genuth; Hertzel C Gerstein; Henry N Ginsberg; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Karen L Margolis; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Denise G Simons-Morton; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2007-04-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Rodica Pop-Busui; Andrew J M Boulton; Eva L Feldman; Vera Bril; Roy Freeman; Rayaz A Malik; Jay M Sosenko; Dan Ziegler Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Barbara H Braffett; Rose A Gubitosi-Klug; James W Albers; Eva L Feldman; Catherine L Martin; Neil H White; Trevor J Orchard; Maria Lopes-Virella; John M Lachin; Rodica Pop-Busui Journal: Diabetes Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Xinfang Xie; Emily Atkins; Jicheng Lv; Alexander Bennett; Bruce Neal; Toshiharu Ninomiya; Mark Woodward; Stephen MacMahon; Fiona Turnbull; Graham S Hillis; John Chalmers; Jonathan Mant; Abdul Salam; Kazem Rahimi; Vlado Perkovic; Anthony Rodgers Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mahin Chowdhury; Sarah Nevitt; Aikaterini Eleftheriadou; Prathap Kanagala; Hani Esa; Daniel J Cuthbertson; Abd Tahrani; Uazman Alam Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2021-12
Authors: Arnaud D Kaze; Matthew F Yuyun; Rexford S Ahima; Mira M Sachdeva; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 4.213