Glycemic control and CVD outcomes: Randomized clinical trials in 2008

Byron J. Hoogwerf, MD; From the Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Cardiology Prevention Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.

Published on Nov 14, 2008

Article Tools:

The relationship of glucose levels to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, especially coronary heart disease (CHD), in observational data sets has been the subject of several studies. These studies have shown that the relationship between fasting (and postprandial glucose) and CHD risk is continuous and graded,^1-10 and that this relationship extends below the currently defined threshold for diagnosing diabetes mellitus. The assumption has been that glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus should favorably affect CVD outcomes in randomized clinical trials; however, the results of several large trials have not consistently confirmed this hypothesis.^11-17 In fact, ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) data suggest a small increased risk in mortality for patients at high risk for CHD events.¹³

This article reviews key data from the UKPDS (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study), ACCORD, ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease), and VADT (Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial) studies, each of which were performed in subjects with type 2 diabetes, used 2 glucose-lowering strategies, had atherosclerotic vascular disease as a primary^11,13,14or key outcome,^15-18 and provided data on all-cause mortality. Comparisons of the mortality rates from these and other trials have been recently published.¹⁹ Implications of these trials for glucose-lowering strategies in the clinical setting will also be provided.

Clinical trials of glycemic control and CVD outcomes

UKPDS
UKPDS included patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 3867) with a mean age of 54 years. The study intervention used insulin or sulfonylureas in an intensive policy compared with a conventional policy in the main trial. In a parallel study in obese patients (n = 1704), there was an intensive policy arm using metformin. This trial did not have a glycated hemoglobin (HgbA_1c) target. During the trial, HgbA_1c increased over time in both the intensive and the conventional policy groups, with a mean in-trial HgbA_1c of 7.0% and 7.9%, respectively. At the end of the study, there was a 16% reduction in myocardial infarctions (MIs) in the insulin/ sulfonylureas group (P = .052).¹⁷A 30% reduction in macrovasculardisease, including MI, suddendeath, angina, stroke, and peripheralvascular disease, was observedin the metformin group (P = .020vs conventional policy).¹⁶ Post hocepidemiological analyses reported arelationship of in-trial HgbA_1candCVD events in which a 10% (relative)change in HgbA1c was associated with a 14% reduction in MI (P <.001).¹⁵ Hypoglycemia events were very low in this study. Recently, the UKPDS long-term follow-up reported statistically significantreductions in MI and mortality ineach of the intensive policy groups,suggesting glucose lowering has a“legacy” effect (Figure 1).¹⁸

ACCORD
The ACCORD trial included 10,251 patients with CVD (35%) or at very high risk for developing CHD (Figure 2).^12,13,20 ACCORD participants had a mean age of 62 years, mean HgbA_1c of 8.3%, and a mean duration of diabetes mellitus of 10 years. The intensive glucose arm had an HgbA_1c target of 5.9% or less, and the standard arm had an HgbA_1c target range of 7.0% to 7.9%.^12,20 The actual achieved mean HgbA_1cvalueswere 6.4% and 7.5%, respectively,during most of the trial, and theHgbA_1c delta was achieved within8 months.¹³ This trial closed earlybecause of a small increased riskin all-cause mortality; the intensivegroup had 14 deaths per 1000patient-years versus 11 deaths per1000 patient-years in the standardgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22;95% confidence interval [CI],1.01-1.46; P = .04). Most of thesedeaths were related to cardiovascularcauses. There was a modestreduction in the primary end point,but this did not achieve statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.04). The increased mortalitywas associated with the treatmentregimen, but not with any particular medication or combinations ofmedication. Not surprisingly, therewas more hypoglycemia in the intensivelytreated group and somewhatgreater weight gain.

ADVANCE
The ADVANCE trial included 11,140 patients who could be characterized as being at high risk for CVD (Figure 3). ADVANCE participants had a mean age of 66 years, a mean duration of diabetes mellitus of 8 years, and 32% had a history of CVD. The intensive-control intervention used gliclazide, a sulfonylurea, with add-on therapy as needed to achieve a target HgbA_1c of 6.5%. The standard group used a usual-care approach. The mean HgbA_1c of 6.53% was achieved by year 3 of the trial and the standard group had a mean HgbA_1c of 7.3%. ADVANCE also had a slight, but statistically insignificant, reduction in majorcardiovascular outcomes (HR, 0.94;95% CI, 0.84-1.06). There was also nostatistically significant difference betweenthe 2 treatment groups in all-cause mortality(HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06), andsevere hypoglycemia was more common inthe intensive-control group.

VADT
In June 2008, results from VADT were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 68th Scientific Sessions. The study included 1791 type 2 diabetes patients, who had a mean age of 60 years and a mean entry HgbA1c of 9.4%. A history of CHD was present in 40%. The treatment strategy included an intensive HgbA_1c target of 6.5% and an HgbA_1c delta of 1.5% or higher between groups. The actual HgbA_1c values were 8.4% versus 6.9%. This study also showed no difference in major cardiovascular outcomes with intensive therapy (HR, 0.868; P = .11) or CV mortality (HR, 1.258; P = .36).

In the presentation at the ADA, the investigators reported that hypoglycemia was associated with increased death risk only in the standard group. The investigators conducted a post hoc analysis of clinical outcomes based on an analysis of coronary calcium scores in a subgroup of participants that showed possible benefits with more intensive glucose lowering in those with shorter duration of diabetes. A similar analysis of clinical outcomes in the VADT also suggested that intensive glucose control in subjects with shorter duration of diabetes may have CVD benefit, whereas subject with longer duration of diabetes may have increased CVD risk. The cutoff of no benefit or risk was at approximately 12 to 15 years of diabetes mellitus.

Trial implications for glucose management in patients at risk for CHD
Although there will be a number of ongoing analyses and reports from each of the aforementioned trials, some general conclusions can be drawn from the currently available data. First, when it comes to mitigating the risk for CHD events, there is no clear benefit in reducing HgbA1c values lower than 6.5% compared with values in the 7.0% to 9.0% range, at least over periods of 3 to 6 years. Nevertheless, there is a trend toward a benefit in each of the studies, and the long-term follow-up of the UKPDS trial suggests that the modest reductions in CHD events could become statistically significant over time. UKPDS, which included participants with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus, and the post hoc analysis of VADT in patients with shorter duration of diabetes, suggest that any benefits to reduce CHD risk may occur earlier in the disease process. Whether these observations will be confirmed by ACCORD and ADVANCE analyses has yet to be determined.

Second, ACCORD has provided some evidence of increased mortality from an intensive treatment strategy. This observation is not a function of the HgbA_1c level, but some function of the treatment strategy. Currently, hypoglycemia may be associated with increased mortality (ACCORD) and CHD events (VADT). More detailed analyses will hopefully clarify these observations.

Weight gain is commonly seen with more intensive glycemic control and may contribute to mortality risk, possibly attenuating any benefits of glycemic control. Differences were observed between ACCORD and ADVANCE in terms of how rapidly nadir mean intensive HgbA_1c levels were achieved (Figures 2 and 3).The rate at which glucose levels are decreased may also be a risk for adverse outcomes, including mortality. In general, these studies suggest that glucose-lowering therapies associated with low risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain should be considered preferentially in patients with CHD or at high risk for developing it.

Finally, the death rates in these trials, especially ACCORD, are quite low. The patients in these studies were usually aggressively treated with other strategies (low-density lipoprotein reduction, blood pressure control, use of aspirin), which are generally associated with reduced CHD and mortality risk. These studies indirectly affirm the importance of ensuring that CHD risk factors are aggressively treated in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Conclusions

Four large trials do not show benefits of glycemic control on CHD risk over periods of less than a decade. Although point estimates with lower HgbA_1c values are less than 1.0, 3 recent trials do not show statistically significant reductions in atherosclerotic vascular disease events. Very aggressive glycemic intervention may be associated with increased risk of mortality. At present, hypoglycemia seems to be the most likely explanation for the observation of increased mortality.

References

1. Brunner EJ, Shipley MJ, Witte DR, Fuller JH, Marmot MG. Relation between blood glucose and coronary mortality over 33 years in the Whitehall Study. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(1):26-31.

2. Coutinho M, Gerstein HC, Wang Y, Yusuf S. The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events. A metaregression analysis of published data from 20 studies of 95,783 individuals followed for 12.4 years. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(2):233-240.

3. Gao W, Qiao Q, Tuomilehto J. Postchallenge hyperglycaemia rather than fasting hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease events. Clin Lab. 2004;50(9-10):609-615.

4. Gerstein HC. Dysglycemia, not just diabetes, is a continuous risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Evid BasedCardiovasc Med. 1997;1(4):87-88.

5. Gerstein HC, Pais P, Pogue J, Yusuf S. Relationship of glucose and insulin levels to the risk of myocardial infarction: a case-control study. J Am CollCardiol. 1999;33(3):612-619.

6. Gerstein HC, Santaguida P, Raina P, et al. Annual incidence and relative risk of diabetes in people with various categories of dysglycemia: a systematic overview and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Res ClinPract. 2007;78(3):305-312.

7. Haffner SJ, Cassells H. Hyperglycemia as a cardiovascular risk factor. Am JMed. 2003;115(Suppl 8A):6S-11S.

8. Pan WH, Cedres LB, Liu K, et al. Relationship of clinical diabetes and asymptomatic hyperglycemia to risk of coronary heart disease mortality in men and women. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;123(3):504-516.

9. Rodriguez BL, Lau N, Burchfi el CM, et al. Glucose intolerance and 23-year risk of coronary heart disease and total mortality: the Honolulu Heart Program. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(8):1262-1265.

10. Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenblit G, et al. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):421-431.

11. Abraira C, Duckworth W, McCarren M, et al. VA Cooperative Study of

Glycemic Control and Complications in Diabetes Mellitus Type 2. Design of the cooperative study on glycemic control and complications in diabetes mellitus type 2: Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. J Diabetes Complications. 2003;17(6):314-322.

12. Buse JB, Bigger JT, Byington RP, et al; ACCORD Study Group. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(12A):21i-33i.

13. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2545-2559.

14. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al; ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2560-2572.

15. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321(7258):405-412.

16. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):854-865.

17. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837-853.

18. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577-1589.

19. Hoogwerf BJ. Does intensive therapy of type 2 diabetes help or harm? Seeking accord on ACCORD: a clinician and clinical trialist’s perspective. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(10):729-737.

20. Gerstein HC, Riddle MC, Kendall DM, et al; ACCORD Study Group. Glycemia treatment strategies in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(12A):34i-43i.