The beneficial effect of multifactorial treatment of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (RFs) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is well established from randomized clinical trials. We prospectively evaluated the impact of such treatment in a real-world setting, on the development of subclinical arterial damage (SAD), as determined by structural/functional noninvasive biomarkers of vascular pathology (atheromatosis, carotid hypertrophy, arteriosclerosis). We prospectively studied 116 persons with T2D, treated with a multifactorial approach for CV RFs at a tertiary medical center, and 324 individuals without diabetes, for 3.2 years. The primary outcome was changes in vascular biomarkers related to SAD. At baseline, participants in the diabetes group had higher prevalence of SAD. At study end, the changes in clinical, biochemical, and lifestyle characteristics, as well as antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatments, were comparable between the 2 groups. During follow-up, classical CV RFs (smoking, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides) and behavioral features were significantly improved in both groups. Multivariate analysis, after adjusting for all classic CV RFs and use of antihypertensive/lipid-lowering therapies, demonstrated that all evaluated SAD biomarkers were similarly changed in the 2 groups. In conclusion, implementation of a multimodality approach of T2D treatment is feasible and efficacious in decelerating progression of SAD in routine clinical practice.
ZimmetPZMaglianoDJHermanWHShawJE. Diabetes: a 21st century challenge. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:56–64.
2.
SaeediPPetersohnISalpeaP, et al.Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843.
3.
Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, SarwarNGaoPSeshasaiSRK, et al.Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet. 2010;375:2215–22.
4.
BuseJBWexlerDJTsapasA, et al.2019 Update to: Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2020;43:487–93.
5.
Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352:837–53.
6.
HolmanRRPaulSKBethelMAMatthewsDR, Neil HAW. 10-Year Follow-up of Intensive Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1577–89.
7.
Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317:703–13.
8.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators, KearneyPMBlackwellLCollinsR, et al.Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;371:117–25.
9.
GædePVedelPLarsenNJensenGVHParvingH-HPedersenO. Multifactorial Intervention and Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:383–93.
10.
GædePLund-AndersenHParvingH-HPedersenO. Effect of a Multifactorial Intervention on Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:580–91.
11.
Authors/Task Force Members,RydénLGrantPJAnkerSD, et al.ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:3035–87.
12.
BanegasJRLópez-GarcíaEDallongevilleJ, et al.Achievement of treatment goals for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice across Europe: the EURIKA study. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2143–52.
13.
GenuthSAlbertiKGMMBennettP, et al.Follow-up Report on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3160–7.
14.
PanagiotakosDBMiliasGAPitsavosCStefanadisC. MedDietScore: a computer program that evaluates the adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern and its relation to cardiovascular disease risk. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2006;83:73–7.
15.
FriedewaldWTLevyRIFredricksonDS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18:499–502.
16.
RomanMJNaqviTZGardinJMGerhard-HermanMJaffMMohlerE. American Society of Echocardiography, Society of Vascular Medicine and Biology, Clinical Application of Noninvasive Vascular Ultrasound in Cardiovascular Risk Stratification: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Vascular Medicine and Biology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2006;19:943–54.
17.
EngelenLFerreiraIStehouwerCDBoutouyriePLaurentS. Reference Values for Arterial Measurements Collaboration, Reference intervals for common carotid intima-media thickness measured with echotracking: relation with risk factors. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2368–80.
18.
SchiffrinELHayozD. How to assess vascular remodelling in small and medium-sized muscular arteries in humans. J Hypertens. 1997;15:571–84.
19.
Mattace-RasoFUSHofmanAVerwoertGC, et al.Determinants of pulse wave velocity in healthy people and in the presence of cardiovascular risk factors: ‘Establishing normal and reference values’. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2338–50.
20.
StamatelopoulosKSKitasGDPapamichaelCM, et al.Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis Versus Diabetes. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29:1702–8.
21.
LaurentSCockcroftJVan BortelL, et al.European Network for Non-invasive Investigation of Large Arteries, Expert consensus document on arterial stiffness: methodological issues and clinical applications. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2588–605.
22.
Mannheim carotid intima-media thickness consensus (2004-2006). An update on behalf of the advisory board of the 3 rd and 4th Watching the Risk Symposium, 13th and 15th European Stroke Conferences. Mannheim, Germany, 2004, and Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
23.
BrohallGOdénAFagerbergB. Carotid artery intima-media thickness in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2006;23:609–16.
24.
GædePOellgaardJCarstensenB, et al.Years of life gained by multifactorial intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria: 21 years follow-up on the Steno-2 randomised trial. Diabetologia. 2016;59:2298–307.
25.
SafaiNCarstensenBVestergaardHRidderstråleM. Impact of a multifactorial treatment programme on clinical outcomes and cardiovascular risk estimates: a retrospective cohort study from a specialised diabetes centre in Denmark. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019214.
26.
CriquiMHLangerRDFronekA, et al.Mortality over a period of 10 years in patients with peripheral arterial disease. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:381–6.
27.
AronsonDRayfieldEJ. How hyperglycemia promotes atherosclerosis: molecular mechanisms. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2002;1:1.
28.
BeckmanJACreagerMALibbyP. Diabetes and Atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2002;287:2570.
29.
InabaYChenJABergmannS.R.Carotid plaque, compared with carotid intima-media thickness, more accurately predicts coronary artery disease events: A meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2012;220:128–33.
30.
MatsagouraMAndreadisEDiamantopoulosEJVassilopoulosCTentolourisNKatsilambrosN. Carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes: the significance of microalbuminuria and different risk factors for atherosclerosis. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2966.
31.
LorenzMWMarkusHSBotsMLRosvallMSitzerM. Prediction of Clinical Cardiovascular Events With Carotid Intima-Media Thickness. Circulation. 2007;115:459–67.
32.
LorenzMWPolakJFKavousiM, et al.PROG-IMT Study Group, Carotid intima-media thickness progression to predict cardiovascular events in the general population (the PROG-IMT collaborative project): a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012;379:2053–62.
33.
LorenzMWPriceJFRobertsonC, et al.Carotid intima-media thickness progression and risk of vascular events in people with diabetes: results from the PROG-IMT collaboration. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:1921–9.
34.
FerreiraMTLeiteNCCardosoCRLSallesGF. Correlates of aortic stiffness progression in patients with type 2 diabetes: importance of glycemic control: the Rio de Janeiro type 2 diabetes cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:897–904.
35.
CardosoCRLFerreiraMTLeiteNCSallesGF. Prognostic impact of aortic stiffness in high-risk type 2 diabetic patients: The Rio de Janeiro type 2 diabetes cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:3772–8.
36.
WilkinsonIBMcEnieryCMCockcroftJR. Arteriosclerosis and Atherosclerosis. Hypertension. 2009;54:1213–5.
37.
American Diabetes Association, 10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:S103–23.
38.
ProtogerouADFransenJZampeliE, et al.The Additive Value of Femoral Ultrasound for Subclinical Atherosclerosis Assessment in a Single Center Cohort of 962 Adults, Including High Risk Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132307.
39.
MachFBaigentCCatapanoAL, et al.2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Atherosclerosis. 2019;290:140–205.
40.
ZinmanBWannerCLachinJM, et al.EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators, Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117–28.
41.
MarsoSPDanielsGHBrown-FrandsenK, et al.LEADER Steering Committee, LEADER Trial Investigators, Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:311–22.
