Dataset Information

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes.ACCORD was a parallel-group, randomised trial done in 77 clinical sites in North America. People with diabetes, high HbA(1c) concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >or=2 cardiovascular risk factors) were randomly assigned by central randomisation to intensive (target haemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] of <6.0%) or standard (7.0-7.9%) glycaemic therapy. In this analysis, the prespecified composite outcomes were: dialysis or renal transplantation, high serum creatinine (>291.7 micromol/L), or retinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy (first composite outcome); or peripheral neuropathy plus the first composite outcome (second composite outcome). 13 prespecified secondary measures of kidney, eye, and peripheral nerve function were also assessed. Investigators and participants were aware of treatment group assignment. Analysis was done for all patients who were assessed for microvascular outcomes, on the basis of treatment assignment, irrespective of treatments received or compliance to therapies. ACCORD is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000620.10 251 patients were randomly assigned, 5128 to the intensive glycaemia control group and 5123 to standard group. Intensive therapy was stopped before study end because of higher mortality in that group, and patients were transitioned to standard therapy. At transition, the first composite outcome was recorded in 443 of 5107 patients in the intensive group versus 444 of 5108 in the standard group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.14; p=1.00), and the second composite outcome was noted in 1591 of 5107 versus 1659 of 5108 (0.96, 0.89-1.02; p=0.19). Results were similar at study end (first composite outcome 556 of 5119 vs 586 of 5115 [HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07, p=0.42]; and second 1956 of 5119 vs 2046 of 5115, respectively [0.95, 0.89-1.01, p=0.12]). Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Seven secondary measures at study end favoured intensive therapy (p<0.05).Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the increase in total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and high risk for severe hypoglycaemia.US National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institute on Aging; National Eye Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and General Clinical Research Centers.

SUBMITTER: Ismail-Beigi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4123233 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

Ismail-Beigi Faramarz F Craven Timothy T Banerji Mary Ann MA Basile Jan J Calles Jorge J Cohen Robert M RM Cuddihy Robert R Cushman William C WC Genuth Saul S Grimm Richard H RH Hamilton Bruce P BP Hoogwerf Byron B Karl Diane D Katz Lois L Krikorian Armand A O'Connor Patrick P Pop-Busui Rodica R Schubart Ulrich U Simmons Debra D Taylor Harris H Thomas Abraham A Weiss Daniel D Hramiak Irene I

Lancet (London, England) 20100630 9739

<h4>Background</h4>Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes.<h4>Methods</h4>ACCORD was a parallel-group, randomised trial done in 77 clinical sites in North America. People with diabetes, high HbA(1c) concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >or=2 cardiovascular risk ...[more]

PMID: 20594588

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCurrent type 2 diabetes (T2D) management contraindicates intensive glycemia treatment in patients with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and is partially motivated by evidence of harms in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Heterogeneity in response to intensive glycemia treatment has been observed, suggesting potential benefit for some individuals.Research design and methodsACCORD was a randomized controlled trial that investigated whether intensively treating glycemia in individuals with T2D would reduce CVD outcomes. Using a novel approach to cluster HbA1c trajectories, we identified groups in the intensive glycemia arm with modified CVD risk. Genome-wide analysis and polygenic score (PS) were developed to predict group membership. Mendelian randomization was performed to infer causality.ResultsWe identified four clinical groupings in the intensive glycemia arm, and clinical group 4 (C4) displayed fewer CVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34; P = 2.01 × 10-3) and microvascular outcomes (HR 0.86; P = 0.015) than those receiving standard treatment. A single-nucleotide polymorphism, rs220721, in MAS1 reached suggestive significance in C4 (P = 4.34 × 10-7). PS predicted C4 with high accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.98), and this predicted C4 displayed reduced CVD risk with intensive versus standard glycemia treatment (HR 0.53; P = 4.02 × 10-6), but not reduced risk of microvascular outcomes (P < 0.05). Mendelian randomization indicated causality between PS, on-trial HbA1c, and reduction in CVD outcomes (P < 0.05).ConclusionsWe found evidence of a T2D clinical group in ACCORD that benefited from intensive glycemia treatment, and membership in this group could be predicted using genetic variants. This study generates new hypotheses with implications for precision medicine in T2D and represents an important development in this landmark clinical trial warranting further investigation.

Project description:To compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40-79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0-7.9% (53-63 mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of <120 mmHg (intensive BP) or <140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes.In the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.96) compared with combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes, MI was significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. The mortality HR was 1.33 (95% CI 1.02-1.74) in the standard lipid/intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group.In the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improved major CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with type 2 diabetes are at risk of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy. We aimed to compare the effects on cognitive function and brain volume of intensive versus standard glycaemic control. METHODS:The Memory in Diabetes (MIND) study was done in 52 clinical sites in North America as part of Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD), a double two-by-two factorial parallel group randomised trial. Participants (aged 55-80 years) with type 2 diabetes, high glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentrations (>7·5%; >58 mmol/mol), and a high risk of cardiovascular events were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycaemic control targeting HbA(1c) to less than 6·0% (42 mmol/mol) or a standard strategy targeting HbA(1c) to 7·0-7·9% (53-63 mmol/mol). Randomisation was via a centralised web-based system and treatment allocation was not masked from clinic staff or participants. We assessed our cognitive primary outcome, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score, at baseline and at 20 and 40 months. We assessed total brain volume (TBV), our primary brain structure outcome, with MRI at baseline and 40 months in a subset of participants. We included all participants with follow-up data in our primary analyses. In February, 2008, raised mortality risk led to the end of the intensive treatment and transition of those participants to standard treatment. We tested our cognitive function hypotheses with a mixed-effects model that incorporated information from both the 20 and 40 month outcome measures. We tested our MRI hypotheses with an ANCOVA model that included intracranial volume and factors used to stratify randomisation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00182910. FINDINGS:We consecutively enrolled 2977 patients (mean age 62·5 years; SD 5·8) who had been randomly assigned to treatment groups in the ACCORD study. Our primary cognitive analysis was of patients with a 20-month or 40-month DSST score: 1378 assigned to receive intensive treatment and 1416 assigned to receive standard treatment. Of the 614 patients with a baseline MRI, we included 230 assigned to receive intensive treatment and 273 assigned to receive standard treatment in our primary MRI analysis at 40 months. There was no significant treatment difference in mean 40-month DSST score (difference in mean 0·32, 95% CI -0·28 to 0·91; p=0·2997). The intensive-treatment group had a greater mean TBV than the standard-treatment group (4·62, 2·0 to 7·3; p=0·0007). INTERPRETATION:Although significant differences in TBV favoured the intensive treatment, cognitive outcomes were not different. Combined with the non-significant effects on other ACCORD outcomes, and increased mortality in participants in the intensive treatment group, our findings do not support the use of intensive therapy to reduce the adverse effects of diabetes on the brain in patients with similar characteristics to those of our participants. FUNDING:US National Institute on Aging and US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Dataset Information

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

Publications

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets