0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The ACCORD-Lipid study: implications for treatment of dyslipidemia in Type 2 diabetes mellitus

      , ,
      Clinical Lipidology
      Future Medicine Ltd

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of fenofibrate on the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy (FIELD study): a randomised controlled trial.

          Laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy is often associated with visual field reduction and other ocular side-effects. Our aim was to assess whether long-term lipid-lowering therapy with fenofibrate could reduce the progression of retinopathy and the need for laser treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study was a multinational randomised trial of 9795 patients aged 50-75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive fenofibrate 200 mg/day (n=4895) or matching placebo (n=4900). At each clinic visit, information concerning laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy-a prespecified tertiary endpoint of the main study-was gathered. Adjudication by ophthalmologists masked to treatment allocation defined instances of laser treatment for macular oedema, proliferative retinopathy, or other eye conditions. In a substudy of 1012 patients, standardised retinal photography was done and photographs graded with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) criteria to determine the cumulative incidence of diabetic retinopathy and its component lesions. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64783481. Laser treatment was needed more frequently in participants with poorer glycaemic or blood pressure control than in those with good control of these factors, and in those with a greater burden of clinical microvascular disease, but the need for such treatment was not affected by plasma lipid concentrations. The requirement for first laser treatment for all retinopathy was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (164 [3.4%] patients on fenofibrate vs 238 [4.9%] on placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84; p=0.0002; absolute risk reduction 1.5% [0.7-2.3]). In the ophthalmology substudy, the primary endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade did not differ significantly between the two groups overall (46 [9.6%] patients on fenofibrate vs 57 [12.3%] on placebo; p=0.19) or in the subset of patients without pre-existing retinopathy (43 [11.4%] vs 43 [11.7%]; p=0.87). By contrast, in patients with pre-existing retinopathy, significantly fewer patients on fenofibrate had a 2-step progression than did those on placebo (three [3.1%] patients vs 14 [14.6%]; p=0.004). An exploratory composite endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade, macular oedema, or laser treatments was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94; p=0.022). Treatment with fenofibrate in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus reduces the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy, although the mechanism of this effect does not seem to be related to plasma concentrations of lipids.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS: 23)

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of lowering LDL cholesterol substantially below currently recommended levels in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes: the Treating to New Targets (TNT) study.

              The Treating to New Targets study showed that intensive lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/day provides significant clinical benefit beyond that afforded by atorvastatin 10 mg/day in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD). The objective of our study was to investigate whether similar benefits of high-dose intensive atorvastatin therapy can be achieved in patients with CHD and diabetes. A total of 1,501 patients with diabetes and CHD, with LDL cholesterol levels of <130 mg/dl, were randomized to double-blind therapy with either atorvastatin 10 (n = 753) or 80 (n = 748) mg/day. Patients were followed for a median of 4.9 years. The primary end point was the time to first major cardiovascular event, defined as death from CHD, nonfatal non-procedure-related myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. End-of-treatment mean LDL cholesterol levels were 98.6 mg/dl with atorvastatin 10 mg and 77.0 mg/dl with atorvastatin 80 mg. A primary event occurred in 135 patients (17.9%) receiving atorvastatin 10 mg, compared with 103 patients (13.8%) receiving atorvastatin 80 mg (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.58-0.97], P = 0.026). Significant differences between the groups in favor of atorvastatin 80 mg were also observed for time to cerebrovascular event (0.69 [0.48-0.98], P = 0.037) and any cardiovascular event (0.85 [0.73-1.00], P = 0.044). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of treatment-related adverse events and persistent elevations in liver enzymes. Among patients with clinically evident CHD and diabetes, intensive therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg significantly reduced the rate of major cardiovascular events by 25% compared with atorvastatin 10 mg.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Lipidology
                Clinical Lipidology
                Future Medicine Ltd
                1758-4299
                February 2011
                February 2011
                : 6
                : 1
                : 9-20
                Article
                10.2217/clp.10.84
                26207146
                65dcc88b-28d4-49cb-84ff-7f4ce0e4ab6b
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article