Benefits of intensive multiple risk factor intervention.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
THE ACTION TO CONTROL CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN DIABETES STUDY (ACCORD)
Advertisements

Aggressive Hyperglycemia Management. Significant hospital hyperglycemia requires close follow-up Previously diagnosed diabetes and elevated A1C Without.
BLOOD PRESSURE LOWERING. UKPDS design Aim To determine whether intensified blood glucose control, with either sulphonylurea or insulin, reduces the risk.
Lipid Disorders and Management in Diabetes
CVD prevention & management: a new approach for primary care Rod Jackson School of Population Health University of Auckland New Zealand.
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Dyslipidemia Chapter 24 G. B. John Mancini, Robert A. Hegele, Lawrence A. Leiter.
TNT: Study Design Treating to New Targets 2 5 years 10,001 Patients Clinically evident CHD LDL-C 130  250 mg/dL following up to 8-week washout and 8-week.
Cholesterol quintile (mg/dL)
Introduction To The Alphabet Strategy And Evidence Based Medicine.
CHOLESTEROL LOWERING.
Facts and Fiction about Type 2 Diabetes Michael L. Parchman, MD Department of Family & Community Medicine September 2004.
The concept of Diabetes & CV risk: A lifetime risk challenge
Canadian Diabetes Association 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines Targets for Glycemic Control Chapter 8 S. Ali Imran, Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret, Stuart Ross.
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Vascular Protection in People with Diabetes Chapter 22 James A. Stone, David Fitchett, Steven.
VBWG IDEAL: The Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering Study.
ACCORD - Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ADVANCE - Action in Diabetes to Prevent Vascular Disease VADT - Veterans Administration Diabetes.
Clinical aspects of managing the cardiovascular risk in diabetes Dr SH Song MD FRCP Consultant Diabetologist Northern General Hospital Sheffield.
1 The JNC 7 recommendations for initial or combination drug therapy are based on sound scientific evidence.
Lipid Lowering Substudy Trial of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial JAMA 2002;288: ALLHAT- LLT.
Slide Source: Lipids Online Slide Library Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT)
Diabetes Mellitus Ibrahim Sales, Pharm.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacy King Saud University
The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ALLHAT study overview Double-blind, randomized trial to determine whether.
IDC Diabetes Update: Recent Research and Impact on Diabetes Management Type 1 DiabetesType 1 Diabetes –Post DCCT findings--improving glycemic control and.
Translating Clinical Trials Into Clinical Practice Cliff Bailey on behalf of the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management This slideset was.
Blood glucose: is lower better for diabetic patients?
Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease Presented at Late Breaking Clinical Trials AHA 2002 PROSPER.
ACUTE STROKE — Hypertension is a common problem in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes but the time course in relation to the duration.
The Science: CHD and Diabetes as Co-morbidities Kathy Reims, MD Center for Strategic Innovation 8/27/07.
Joint Effects of Routine Blood Pressure Lowering and Intensive Glucose Control ADVANCE Adapted from EASD 2008.
Identifying and Treating Patients with Insulin Resistance
Session II: Glycemic control, when the lower is not the better Strict glycemic control and cardiovascular diseases Stefano Genovese Diabetologia e Malattie.
Modern Management of Cholesterol in the High-Risk Patient.
1 NHLBI/NEI National Institutes of Health NHLBI/NEI National Institutes of Health.
Rationale, Study Design & Study Population
VBWG HPS. Lancet. 2003;361: Gæde P et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;348: Recent statin trials: Reduction in primary outcome in patients with diabetes.
The concept of Diabetes & CV risk: A lifetime risk challenge The Clinical Significance of LDL-Cholesterol: No Longer a Hypothesis? John J.P. Kastelein,
Cholesterol Lowering and CV Risk: Meta-analyses. On-Treatment LDL and CHD Events in Statin Trials 2 Adapted from Rosenson RS. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs.
Slide Source: Lipids Online Slide Library Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) Type 2 diabetes mellitus Men and women.
FDA Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee 1st June 2008 Rury Holman Clinical outcomes with anti-diabetic drugs: What we already know.
Lower the better; the case for glucose Professor Taner DAMCI Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical School, TURKEY.
Incremental Decrease in Clinical Endpoints Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) Trial IDEAL Trial Presented at The American Heart Association Scientific.
Glycemic Control: When the Lower is Not the “Better”?
Diabetes... Common and underdiagnosed Causes macro- and microvascular events Reduces duration and quality of life.
The overwhelming case for LDL-C lowering
A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial
ALLHAT Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial JAMA 2002;288:
ASCOT and Steno-2: Aggressive risk reduction benefits two different patient populations *Composite of CV death, nonfatal MI or stroke, revascularization,
Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CARDS Dr Sachin Kadoo.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck
1 ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic Status January 28, 2004.
Part 3. Diabetes Report Card: HbA 1c Levels in the United States Hoerger TJ, et al. Diabetes Care. 2008;31: Patients (%) HbA 1c (%)
MACROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS, DYSLIPIDEMIA and HYPERTENSION 2003 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada.
Diabetes and the Kidney Richard Kingston Department of Renal Medicine Kent and Canterbury Hospital.
Over Time Additional Risk Factors Can Progress: Effect of Cholesterol and BP on CHD Risk in MRFIT Trial
Cardiometabolic Risk, Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease.
Diabetes & macrovascular disease. Prevalence of Diabetes: Males Prevalence of raised blood glucose (%) ages 25+, age standardized, ≥ 7 mmol/l or on medication.
Blood Pressure and Lipid Trials: Rationale, Importance and Design
Prevention of CVD in Diabetes
ACCORD Design and Baseline Characteristics
Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials Ungroup once.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck
Reducing Adverse Outcomes after ACS in Patients with Diabetes Goals
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck
Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease
The Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
HDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk Epidemiological evidence
HDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk
Insights from the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT)
The following slides are from a Cardiology Scientific Update in which Dr. Gordon Moe reported and discussed an original presentation by Drs. Bjorn Dahlof,
Prevention of CVD in Diabetes
Presentation transcript:

Benefits of intensive multiple risk factor intervention

Potential benefits of multifactorial approaches Adherence to multiple therapies is more likely if initiated simultaneously Early aggressive therapy targeting multiple risk factors could potentially have a major impact on CVD prevention Chapman RH et al. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165: Wald NJ, Law MR. BMJ. 2003;326:1419.

MRFIT: CVD mortality by diabetes status and number of baseline risk factors Stamler J et al. Diabetes Care 1993;16:

FPG (mmol/L) HbA 1C (%) SBP (mmHg) DBP (mmHg) Tot-C (mmol/L) LDL-C (mmol/L) TG (mmol/L) Conventional – –3 – – Intensive –2.9 –0.5 –14 –12 –1.1 –1.2 –0.5 p < < Gaede P et al. NEJM 2003;348: Evidence base for multiple risk factor intervention: the STENO-2 study

Hazard ratio and 95% CI Cardiovascular disease Autonomic neuropathy Retinopathy Nephropathy Gaede P et al. NEJM 2003;348: STENO-2 study: Clinical outcomes

Gaede P, et al. NEJM 2003; 348: STENO-2 study: Residual CV risk

Risk factors for coronary artery disease Potentially modifiablep  LDL cholesterol<  HDL cholesterol  HbA 1C  Systolic blood pressure  Smoking Stepwise selection of major risk factors for 280 coronary artery disease events in 2,693 UKPDS patients followed for 10 years Age and gender were also significant risk factors but not body mass index, fasting plasma insulin, waist/hip ratio or microalbuminuria Turner RC et al. BMJ 1998;316:823-8

Summary Type 2 diabetes is characterised by a complex and evolving pathophysiology Most patients die from a cardiovascular cause, but microvascular complications are also important Integrated strategies to control multiple risk factors are crucial to improve patient outcomes

Approaches to CVD prevention in diabetes Lipid modification Lifestyle intervention BP lowering Glucose lowering Optimal CV risk Reduction ?

The problem Patients routinely underestimate their own CV risk CV complications start to develop early in disease course Patients pick and choose which pills to take Complications are usually already present at diagnosis Abnormal insulin sensitivity, haemostasis, BP, vascular function, weight, lipids, all drive adverse outcomes The prevention of CV complications: a complex and multifactorial problem Dysfunctional microcirculation and macrocirculation

Drug Therapy Primary Indication Statins Dyslipidaemia Antihypertensives Blood pressure Oral antidiabetics Glucose control Long-acting insulins Glucose control Frequently used therapies in diabetes

Key findings from recent lipid- lowering trials HPS Benefit in CVD and DM regardless of baseline LDL-C ASCOT-LLA Benefit in high-risk HTN regardless of baseline LDL-C CARDS Benefit in DM TNT Benefit of intensive vs moderate lipid lowering in stable CAD ALLHAT-LLT Neutral effect in HTN with mild lipid lowering PROVE IT-TIMI 22 Early and late benefit of intensive vs moderate lipid lowering in ACS Primary prevention Secondary prevention (ACS) Secondary prevention (stable CAD) 4D Neutral effect in ESRD A to Z Late benefit of intensive vs moderate lipid lowering in ACS IDEAL Benefit of intensive vs moderate lipid lowering in stable CAD

Statins reduce all-cause death: Meta-analysis of 14 trials CTT Collaborators. Lancet. 2005;366: Cause of death Vascular causes: Stroke Other vascular Any vascular Any non-CHD vascular Nonvascular causes: Cancer Respiratory Trauma Other/unknown Any nonvascular Any death Events (%) Treatment (n = 45,054) Control (n = 45,002) Treatment better Control better CHD Relative risk

Benefits of aggressive LDL-C lowering in diabetes Shepherd J et al. Diabetes Care 2006; Sever PS et al. Diabetes Care 2005; HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet 2003; Colhoun HM et al. Lancet Difference in LDL-C (mg/dL) Aggressive lipid- lowering better Aggressive lipid- lowering worse < Primary event rate (%) Control Treatment P TNT Diabetes, CHD ASCOT-LLA Diabetes, HTN CARDS Diabetes, no CVD HPS All diabetes Diabetes, no CVD * Atorvastatin 10 vs 80 mg/day † Statin vs placebo Relative risk * 35 † 46 † 39 † 0.75

CARDS: cumulative hazard for any CVD endpoint Relative Risk = -32% (95% CI -45, -15) p=0.001 Years Atorva Placebo Placebo 189 events Atorvastatin 134 events Cumulative Hazard (%) Colhoun H.M. et.al. Lancet 2004; 364:

Key findings from recent BP-lowering trials ALLHAT Benefit regardless of drug class INVEST CCB + ACEI equivalent to  -blocker + diuretic in hypertension + CAD VALUE Importance of prompt BP control ASCOT-BPLA Benefit of CCB + ACEI vs  -blocker + diuretic in high-risk hypertension without CAD CAMELOT Evidence for  BP goal in hypertension + CAD  -blocker meta- analysis Increased risk of stroke vs other antihypertensives

All-cause mortality CV mortality CV events p=0.04 p=0.02 p=0.01 No diabetes Diabetes No diabetes Diabetes No diabetes Diabetes Favours treatment Adjusted hazard ratio Greater benefit from hypertension control in type 2 diabetes: Syst-Eur study Tuomilehto J et al. N Engl J Med 1999;340: p values compare diabetic vs. non-diabetic

Risk reductions from intervention studies in type 2 diabetes Clinical Outcomes Diabetes-related deaths (%) All-cause mortality (%) All MI (%) Fatal MI (%) All stroke (%) Fatal stroke (%) Follow-up (years) UKPDS Captopril Atenolol n= HOPE Ramipril n= HOT Felodipine Aspirin n= S Simva- statin n= UKPDS Group. BMJ 1998; 317: ; HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351(9118): ; 4S Group. Lancet 1994; 344: ; HOPE study investigators. Lancet 2000; 355;

ADA (USA) 1 IDF (Europe) 2 AACE (USA) 3 FPG (mmol/L) < 6.7 (120)* < 6.0 (110)* HbA 1C (%) < 7 < 6.5 *mg/dL Targets for glycaemic control 1 American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 1999; 22(Suppl 1):S1-S114; 2 European Diabetes Policy Group. Diabetic Medicine 1999;16:716-30; 3 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Endocrine Pract (2002) 8(Suppl. 1):40-82

Risk reduction in UKPDS 75 An intensive glucose control policy HbA 1c 7.0 % vs 7.9 % reduces risk of – any diabetes-related endpoints 12% p=0.030 – microvascular endpoints 25% p=0.010 – myocardial infarction 16% p=0.052 A tight BP control policy 144 / 82 vs 154 / 87 mmHg reduces risk of – any diabetes-related endpoint 24% p=0.005 – microvascular endpoint 37% p=0.009 – stroke 44% p=0.013 Stratton IM et al. Diabetologia 2006;

UKPDS 34: Intensive glucose control and CV protection UKPDS Group. Lancet. 1998;352: n = 1704 overweight, with diabetes; n = 342 metformin group Favors metformin or intensive Favors usual care All-cause mortality Metformin Intensive Myocardial infarction Metformin Intensive Stroke Metformin Intensive Aggregate endpointsP* 012 *Metformin vs other intensive therapy (sulfonylurea or insulin) Relative risk (95% CI)