Dataset Information

THE IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL: A REVIEW.

ABSTRACT: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is steadily rising in the U.S., both in the general population and among those with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Understanding how to treat a patient with both conditions is becoming increasingly important. With multiple therapeutic options for CVD management, some medications will invariably impact glycemia in this group of patients. The concept of "DM-friendly" management of CVD is based on a treatment approach of selecting medications that do not impair glycemic control and provide equivalent cardioprotective effects. This article reviews the glycemic effects of various classes of medications commonly used to treat CVD.Data sources were all PubMed- and Google Scholar-referenced articles in English-language peer-reviewed journals from 1980 through April 2016. Studies selected could include observational studies or prospective clinical trials. Prospective clinical trials included in this review focused on investigating the association of the medication of interest with glycemic outcomes. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews were also included.The data on glycemic effects were lacking for many of the medication classes and individual medications examined. However, in our review, certain beta-blockers and renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors, and select calcium channel blockers were consistently shown to have favorable glycometabolic profiles when compared with other commonly used cardiovascular therapies.Several commonly prescribed medications for the treatment of CVD, such as certain beta-blockers and renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibiting agents, are associated with favorable glycometabolic effects. As clinicians are more often faced with the challenge of treating patients with DM and concomitant CVD, consideration of how common cardiovascular medications may affect glycemia should be incorporated into the clinical decision making process.A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker CCB = calcium channel blocker CI = confidence interval CVD = cardiovascular disease DM = diabetes mellitus MI = myocardial infarction RR = relative risk.

SUBMITTER: Grodzinsky A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5828513 | biostudies-other | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

THE IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL: A REVIEW.

Grodzinsky Anna A Arnold Suzanne V SV Jacob Dany D Draznin Boris B Kosiborod Mikhail M

Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 20161214 3

<h4>Objective</h4>The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is steadily rising in the U.S., both in the general population and among those with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Understanding how to treat a patient with both conditions is becoming increasingly important. With multiple therapeutic options for CVD management, some medications will invariably impact glycemia in this group of patients. The concept of "DM-friendly" management of CVD is based on a treatment approach of selecting medication ...[more]

PMID: 27967225

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Walking is the most popular and most preferred exercise among type 2 diabetes patients, yet compelling evidence regarding its beneficial effects on cardiovascular risk factors is still lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to evaluate the association between walking and glycemic control and other cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: Three databases were searched up to August 2014. English-language RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they had assessed the walking effects (duration ?8 weeks) on glycemic control or other cardiovascular risk factors among type 2 diabetes patients. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses based on supervision status and meta-regression analyses of variables regarding characteristics of participants and walking were performed to investigate their association with glycemic control. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 20 RCTs (866 participants) were included. Walking significantly decreased glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by 0.50% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: -0.78% to -0.21%). Supervised walking was associated with a pronounced decrease in HbA1c (WMD -0.58%, 95% CI: -0.93% to -0.23%), whereas non-supervised walking was not. Further subgroup analysis suggested non-supervised walking using motivational strategies is also effective in decreasing HbA1c (WMD -0.53%, 95% CI: -1.05% to -0.02%). Effects of covariates on HbA1c change were generally unclear. For other cardiovascular risk factors, walking significantly reduced body mass index (BMI) and lowered diastolic blood pressure (DBP), but non-significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP), or changed high-density or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports that walking decreases HbA1c among type 2 diabetes patients. Supervision or the use of motivational strategies should be suggested when prescribed walking to ensure optimal glycemic control. Walking also reduces BMI and lowers DBP, however, it remains insufficient regarding the association of walking with lowered SBP or improved lipoprotein profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009515.

Project description:Background The value of glycemic control and preexisting cardiovascular disease in determining the risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in type 2 diabetes mellitus is uncertain. Intensive glucose control trials suggest that the 9% lower risk of MACE associated with intensive glycemic control, as compared with conventional glycemic control, is only driven by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus without cardiovascular disease at baseline. Methods and Results We did a meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials dividing patients with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease; we found that the lower risk of MACE is confined to patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline. Compared with placebo, the use of both glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors was associated with a significant 14% lower MACE risk in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and with a nonsignificant 2% higher MACE risk in those without preexisting cardiovascular disease ( P for interaction=0.021). The meta-regression analysis of all 12 trials demonstrated a significant ( P=0.002) association between reductions of glycated hemoglobin in glycated hemoglobin A1C. Accordingly, the reduction of MACE expected if all cardiovascular outcome trials had achieved a 0.9% glycated hemoglobin reduction would have been 33%. Routine clinical care data complement the results of cardiovascular outcome trials but with some differences: the lower risk of MACE with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor use is evident in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease. Conclusions Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists should be included in the therapeutic plan of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overt cardiovascular disease, with due attention paid to improvement of glycemic control, which may amplify their benefit on MACE.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of developing tuberculosis (TB), and optimal glycemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of complications and improve the TB treatment outcomes in patients with DM.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the role of glycemic control in improving TB treatment outcomes among patients with DM.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of oral glycemic control in patients with TB who have DM. Outcomes of interest were radiological findings, treatment success, sputum positivity, and mortality. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs using weighted random-effects models.ResultsThe analysis included 6919 patients from 7 observational studies. Our meta-analysis showed significant differences between patients with optimal glycemic control and those with poor glycemic control with regard to improved treatment outcomes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25; P=.02; I²=65%), reduced sputum positivity (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.61; P=.003; I²=66%), and fewer cavitary lesions (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.68; P<.001; I²=0%) in radiological findings. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.49; P=.25; I²=0%), multilobar involvement (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.49; P=.25; I²=0%) on radiologic examination, and upper lobe (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76-1.17; P=.58; I²=0%) and lower lobe (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.48-2.30; P=.91; I²=75%) involvement on radiologic examination.ConclusionsWe concluded that optimal glycemic control is crucial for reducing susceptibility, minimizing complications, and improving treatment outcomes in patients with TB with DM. Emphasizing effective health management and health care strategies are essential in achieving this control. Integrating comprehensive care among patients with TB with DM will enhance patient outcomes and alleviate the burden of disease in this population.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023427362; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=427362.

Dataset Information

THE IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL: A REVIEW.

Publications

THE IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL: A REVIEW.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets