Cargando…
Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial
OBJECTIVE: 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. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40–79 year...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Diabetes Association
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4030092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595629 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2334 |
_version_ | 1782317329952014336 |
---|---|
author | Margolis, Karen L. O’Connor, Patrick J. Morgan, Timothy M. Buse, John B. Cohen, Robert M. Cushman, William C. Cutler, Jeffrey A. Evans, Gregory W. Gerstein, Hertzel C. Grimm, Richard H. Lipkin, Edward W. Narayan, K.M.Venkat Riddle, Matthew C. Sood, Ajay Goff, David C. |
author_facet | Margolis, Karen L. O’Connor, Patrick J. Morgan, Timothy M. Buse, John B. Cohen, Robert M. Cushman, William C. Cutler, Jeffrey A. Evans, Gregory W. Gerstein, Hertzel C. Grimm, Richard H. Lipkin, Edward W. Narayan, K.M.Venkat Riddle, Matthew C. Sood, Ajay Goff, David C. |
author_sort | Margolis, Karen L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: 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. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 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 A(1c) 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4030092 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | American Diabetes Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40300922015-06-01 Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial Margolis, Karen L. O’Connor, Patrick J. Morgan, Timothy M. Buse, John B. Cohen, Robert M. Cushman, William C. Cutler, Jeffrey A. Evans, Gregory W. Gerstein, Hertzel C. Grimm, Richard H. Lipkin, Edward W. Narayan, K.M.Venkat Riddle, Matthew C. Sood, Ajay Goff, David C. Diabetes Care Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk OBJECTIVE: 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. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 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 A(1c) 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. American Diabetes Association 2014-06 2014-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4030092/ /pubmed/24595629 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2334 Text en © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details. |
spellingShingle | Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk Margolis, Karen L. O’Connor, Patrick J. Morgan, Timothy M. Buse, John B. Cohen, Robert M. Cushman, William C. Cutler, Jeffrey A. Evans, Gregory W. Gerstein, Hertzel C. Grimm, Richard H. Lipkin, Edward W. Narayan, K.M.Venkat Riddle, Matthew C. Sood, Ajay Goff, David C. Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title | Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title_full | Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title_fullStr | Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title_short | Outcomes of Combined Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes: The ACCORD Randomized Trial |
title_sort | outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the accord randomized trial |
topic | Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4030092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595629 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2334 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT margoliskarenl outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT oconnorpatrickj outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT morgantimothym outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT busejohnb outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT cohenrobertm outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT cushmanwilliamc outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT cutlerjeffreya outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT evansgregoryw outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT gersteinhertzelc outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT grimmrichardh outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT lipkinedwardw outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT narayankmvenkat outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT riddlematthewc outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT soodajay outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial AT goffdavidc outcomesofcombinedcardiovascularriskfactormanagementstrategiesintype2diabetestheaccordrandomizedtrial |